COLLECTIONS 



OF THE 



Rhode Island Historical Society. 



VOLUME IX. 



PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND. 
1897. 



Monograph 






iu. 






THE PROPRIETORS OF PROVIDENCE, 



AND THEIR 



CONTROVERSIES WITH THE FREEHOLDERS. 



HENRY C. DORR. 



COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS. 



John H. Stiness, Chairman. 
Amasa M. Eaton, 
Amos Perry, 
Wilfred H. Munro, 
Fred A. Arnold, 
J. Franklin Jameson. 



At the annual meeting of the Rhode Island Historical 
Society, January 12, 1897, it was voted: — 

" That the Publication Committee be and is hereby author- 
ized and instructed to publish the paper of Mr. Henry C. 
Dorr, on the " Controversy between the Proprietors and the 
Freeholders of Providence," as Vol. IX. of the Society's Col- 
lections, together with such preface and index as are approved 
by Mr. Dorr ; also, 

" That the thanks of the Society be extended to Mr. Dorr 
for this valuable contribution to the early history of the 
Providence Plantations, and also to those members of the 
Society who defray the expense of this publication." 



THE PROPRIETORS OF PROVIDENCE, AND 

THEIR CONTROVERSIES WITH THE 

FREEHOLDERS. 



CONTENTS. 

The Peculiar Title to the Lands, 

The "Initial Deed," ..... 

The Arbitrators' Proposals for a Form of Govern 

ment, ....... 

Samuel Gorton in Providence, 

Secession at Pawtuxet, .... 

Progress under the Charter of 1644, 

Endeavors of Vane and Williams, 

The Proprietors' Claim to Lands west of the Indian 

Line, ....... 

The Controversy of Williams and Harris, 

The Sachems confirm the Grants; Freemen and Pur 

chasers, ...... 

The " Seven-Mile Line " and the " Four-Mile Line," 

New Contentions under the New Charter, 

Indian Wars; the Proprietors become a Corporation 

Growth under the Proprietors, 

Summary and Conclusions, .... 



pages. 
i-ii 



21-26 

27-32 

33-35 
36-56 
57-64 

65-72 
73-77 

78-86 
86-95 
95-104 
104-113 
113-128 
128-136 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 



THE PROPRIETORS OF PROVIDENCE, AND 

THEIR CONTROVERSIES WITH THE 

FREEHOLDERS. 



The earliest controversy of the Plantations was between 
the Proprietors and the Freeholders. During two generations v 
it disturbed the quiet of the town meeting and the harmony 
of private life, and, more than anything beside, delayed union 
and success. It arose out of the peculiar title to the lands. 
Its ill consequences long survived it. Its details are now 
forgotten, and many of its historical records have perished. 
But it is worthy of remembrance, if only as an illustration of 
the fact, that of all political blunders, those of the founders 
of a State are the most permanent in influence and the most 
difficult of remedy. 

The troubles of the townsmen had a beginning earlier than 
the Plantation itself. Such an undertaking requires, and has 
everywhere else received, forethought, organization, and re- 
sources. It cannot be extemporized, or adventured suddenly 
and in haste. Such was Williams's own view of his project. 
While yet a resident of Plymouth (1631-32), he had known 
Canonicus, and had received assurance of the favor and aid 
of the great Sachem of the Narragansetts. Williams then 
contemplated a settlement at Acquetneck, and had ever since- 
been occupied in slowly maturing his scheme. Sometimes 
he thought of going alone into the wilderness, as to a mission 
to do good to the natives' souls.* A little reflection must 
have taught him that this was but a day-dream. He must 
have seen that with such a country and such a bay, neither 
England, France, Holland nor Massachusetts would very long 

*" My soul's desire was, to do the natives good." Answer of Roger 
Williams to the Declaration of William Harris against the Town of 
Providence, p. 53, Rider's Hist. Tract No. 14. 



2 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

leave him alone in Narragansett. At the time of his banish- 
ment, Williams had no definite scheme for his colony. The 
controversial temper which he had manifested did not attract 
the organizing spirits of Massachusetts to any enterprise 
which was to be subject to his control. He had need to con- 
sult with men of liberal views in England, for England was 
not wholly Puritan. These could have aided him with capital' 
with men skilled in mechanic arts, and with those competent 
to found and to conduct a system of education which was, 
most of all, needed in such a colony as he proposed. While 
he was slowly developing his plans, he suddenly received 
news of an order for his arrest. He saw that his last oppor- 
tunity had come. Had he waited until his return from London 
he would have found the only refuge in New England closed 
against him by Massachusetts.* [See his letter to Mason, 
1670.] He says that he lost ;^iooo by the breaking up of his 
business. His arrangements of his private affairs must be 
made upon the instant. Directions must be given at once for 
the conduct of a trading-house, very considerable for those 
days. His family must be provided with temporary support, 
and his leave-taking with such of his friends as could be 
assembled must be gone through. The colony at Mooshas- 
suc was founded within six hours. All these arrangements 
were hurried through during one short winter day, and he 
went forth alone and unprovided, into the winter night, no 
one knew whither. He could be assured of the companionship 
of but few who could be of service to his undertaking. Dur- 
ing the next spring, he was pressed with the labor of planting 
at Seekonk. He had little leisure and few facilities for corres- 
pondence, and but few men fit to plan a new social organiza- 
tion. Some whom he asked or permitted to follow him, he 
would not have invited had he known them better, for they 
certainly were of little use. Some, well qualified for the 
work, were probably dissuaded from it by their knowledge 
that beside the terror of the wilderness they must encounter 
the hostility of Massachusetts, and the loss of old friendships 

*Williams was not expecting a speedy removal to R. I. at the time of 
his banishment, and had made no preparations for it. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 3 

there. A departure to Mooshassuc seems to have been re- 
garded among "the Bay people," very much as the men of 
this generation looked upon a settlement in Utah. 

Had Williams been able to collect his substance, and to 
mature his scheme, he would have directed his steps towards 
Acquetneck. The Mooshassuc was not his first choice. Had 
he done so, as he had once intended, he would have found 
greater resources of every kind. The varied materials of the 
colony might have been united in one town, for which they 
were not too many. It would have possessed greater breadth 
and comprehensiveness than belonged either to Providence 
or to Newport, and would have gained a wider audience from 
the beginning. The settlement at Mooshassuc would have 
been later in date, and its history unlike what it is.* 

When the unforeseen events suddenly befell him, Williams 
had not, like Massachusetts, a charter, with a tolerably well 
defined boundary, with full right of soil and jurisdiction. He 
was not unaware of the infirmity of his title. In one of his 
earliest letters to Governor Winthrop,f he speaks of his 
occupancy as merely provisional — " until we hear further of 
the King's pleasure concerning ourselves." Their govern- 
ment was a mere agreement, " the inhabitants to pay ^os. 
apiece as they came." It was Williams's first intention to apply 
to the government of England for a charter. But he felt no 
assurance that a charter would be granted, embodying his 
political ideas, or that the people would be allowed to elect 
their officers from among themselves. To the Crown no ap- 
plication was made until 1644, and then only in union with 
Newport. During several years the Plantation suffered the 
evils of a want of legal organization, and of security of title. 
After Williams had built by the spring at Mooshassuc, it was 
still legally competent for any other Englishman with a com- 
pany of followers, to encamp on Fox's Hill and set up a rival 
government with an authority as good as his own. The 

*When the place was first called " Providence," does not appear. 
There is no vote to that effect to be found among the fragments of the 
early records. 

tNarragansett Club's ed., pp. 5, 6. 



4 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

king might have confirmed the title of either, upon terms 
wholly subversive of their principles of government. It is 
probable that only the troubles of the times prevented this 
interference. Williams seems to have thought that an Indian 
title was a sufficient protection. He seems not to have 
been aware that as against the English government he and 
his company were only trespassers upon unoccupied lands of 
the Crown. Williams had no knowledge of English law, and 
did not consider that if any dispute arose over the title to 
the soil, the final decision would be given by the Privy Coun- 
cil or by the king's commissioners according to the rules of 
the common law, by which his proceedings were void ab initio. 
The despotic rule of Massachusetts had forced the settlers of 
Rhode Island into the undesirable position of giving the first 
exhibition of "Squatter Sovereignty" in the new world. It 
was a still greater misfortune of the new State, that the sud- 
denness with which it was founded left no opportunity to settle 
the principles of its organization. The new home had not yet 
been purchased, and future relations at home and abroad 
were in a state of uncertainty. The Planters at Mooshassuc 
were agreed upon but one principle, and that a negative one 
as to what the State should not do. They were agreed as to 
the foundation of a free commonwealth, but had given little 
attention to details. They did not clearly comprehend their 
relations with each other. Hence, at a very early day, the 
germs of many controversies began to develop themselves. 
Thus, in a letter to Governor Winthrop (of 1636 or 1637), 
Williams asks his opinion on " Whether I may not lawfully 
desire this of my neighbours, that as I freely subject myself 
to common consent, and shall not bring in any person into 
the town without their consent, so also that without my con- 
sent, no person be violently brought in and received .?" Wil- 
liams felt the highest respect for the character of Governor 
Winthrop and consulted him on the gravest matters. He 
would never have proposed any trivial or hypothetical ques- 
tion in their correspondence. It would seem that he had 
already submitted this question to the town meeting, and 
that the power of veto upon admissions of new freemen had 
been denied him. It would have given him the future control 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 5 

of the town. On the other hand, Harris and his associates 
always maintained and believed that Williams made his pur- 
chase from the Sachems, only as the agent of the whole 
body. The founder was to have no authority superior to that 
of one of his followers. In justice both to Williams and to 
Harris, these difficulties of the early planters should be re- 
membered, and the ample opportunities for mistakes and 
misunderstandings which they afforded.* 

All thoughts of homesteads and estates were delayed, by. 
want even of an Indian title. So soon as he was able, in the 
earliest days of the Plantations, Williams sought an interview 
with the chief Sachems, and obtained from Canonicus and 
Miantonomi a gift, or at least a promise, of land sufficient for 
a town. This agreement was of unknown date and is not 
now extant. Judge Staples thought that it was merely ver- 
bal. Upon such an insecure foundation, nothing could be 
built. Canonicus was old, — his less trustworthy successor 
might retract his guaranty. Another negotiation was opened, 
ip " the Second year of our Plantation," at which only Wil- 
liams and the Indians were present. A memorandum was 
prepared — it was no deed. It was solemnly attested by the 
Sachems in the presence of Indian witnesses.! It is in these 
words : — 

"At Nanhiggansic the 24th of the first month, commonly 
called March, in y'^ Second yeare of our Plantation, or plant- 
ing, at Mooshausic or Providence. 

" Memorandum, that we, Canonicus & Miantunomi, the 
two chief Sachems of Nanhiggansick, having two years since, 
sold unto Roger Williams, y= lands & meadows upon the 
two fresh rivers called Mooshausic & Wanasquetucket, doe 
now by these presents, establish & confirme y^ bounds of 
those lands, from y^ river & fields at Pautuckqut, y= great hill 
of Notquonchanet, on y^ Northwest, & the town of Mausha- 
pauge on y= West. 

" As also in consideration of the many kindnesses & ser- 
vices he hath continually done for us, both with our friends 

*I have already described in Rider's Hist. Tract No. 15, the mode of 
planting and building the town, and need not repeat what was there said. 
tR. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., pp. 18, 19, 26. 



6 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

at Massachusetts, as also at Quinnichicutt, & Apaum or 
Plymouth, we do freely give unto him, all that land from 
these rivers, reaching to Pautuxet River, as also the grass & 
meadows upon y« said Pautuxet River. In witness whereof 
we have hereunto set our hands." 



Y^ Mark of t: — -=^ Cannonicus. 

f 

Y^ Mark of I Miantunnomi. 



In the presence of 
The Mark of ( j Soldash. 
The Mark of , i Assotemewit. 



1639. Memorandum 3^^ Mo. 9 day. This was all again con- 
firmed by Miantonomi; he acknowledged his act and hand, up 
the streams of Pawtuckqut, & Pawtuxet, without limits, we 
might have, for use of cattle. 

Witness hereof Roger Williams.* • 
Benedict Arnold.* 

The first memorandum (it was no deed in a legal sense) 
was probably the work of Williams alone. The second memo- 
randum, unlike the first, has no mention of the place of its 
execution, and has no Indian witness. Probably it received 
the assent of Miantonomi at one of his visits to Providence, 
and William Harris, who was in communication with Bene- 
dict Arnold (neither of them lovers of Indians), suggested the 
last clause which was the origin of such bitter controversy 
during the next forty years. Such was Williams's opinion as 
to its authorship.| The first memorandum was prepared 
without such legal advice as Williams might have obtained. 

*They were the only two men in the Colony who understood the lan- 
guage of the Indians. 

fSee Williams's second letter to John Whipple, Rider's Hist. Tract No. 
14, pp. 27, 29, 30, 31,33, 34, 44- 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 7 

He did not consult with William Harris, with whom his quar- 
rel had not yet begun. Harris's ready and correct use of 
legal phraseolgy, suggests that he might have had the train- 
ing of an attorney, or of an attorney's clerk. John Throck- 
morton* had been an officer of an English Municipal 
Corporation.! He had made large purchases of real property 
in Massachusetts and elsewhere, and must have known the 
proper terms of an ordinary purchase deed.ij: Governor Wins- 
low of Plymouth, was a good friend to Williams, and knew at 
least the rudiments of English law. Any of these could 
have told him that his boundaries were vague, confused and 
almost certain to become the subjects of controversy, — that 
his grant had no "words of inheritance," and at Common 
Law gave him only a life estate. It does not seem to have 
occurred to him that a defect in such a title would be finally 
adjudicated, not between himself and the Sachems, in an In- 
dian Council or in a Providence town meeting, but between 
two parties of Englishmen ^between himself or his assignees 
on the one side, and some other Englishman setting up an- 
other Indian purchase or title by occupancy or possession on 
the other — and that the controversy would finally be deter- 
mined by the king's courts, according to the rules of English 
law. A matter of such grave importance would have justified 
delay in order to send to England for appropriate forms of 
conveyance. But Williams had an obstinate will and an irrita- 
ble temper, and was very impatient of opposition. As we shall 
see in several instances hereafter, so on this occasion, Wil- 
liams, as was his wont, took counsel with no one, even where 
the rights of others were affected by his action. § He ven- 
tured alone into the wilderness to the Indian stronghold at 
Narragansett, and secured such a title as his own unaided 
foresight permitted. 

*At one time, Throckmorton was the owner of one-half of Prudence 
Island. 

fSee George Fox digged out, p. 13. 

tSee Weeden's Social History of N. E., Vol. I., p. 109. 

§See letter of Richard Scott, Appendix to Fox's " New England Fire-, 
brand quenched," " He must have the ordering of all their affairs, or else 
there would be no quiet agreement among them." 



8 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

The first memorandum was vague and inconsistent in its 
description of the property conveyed. It seems to have been 
unsatisfactory to the associates of Williams. A long delay 
followed, and after two more years, the second memoran- 
dum, called a " confirmation," was obtained from Miantonomi, 
with the additional words, " up streams without limits, we 
might have, for the use of cattle." This "confirmation" 
which the cautious barbarian did not subscribe, was merely 
a certificate by Williams and Benedict Arnold, of what the 
Sachem had said in their presence.* Williams has left no ac- 
count of his reasons for subscribing a document which he 
ever afterward so greatly disapproved. The second memo- 
randum had no legal validity, was mere hearsay. But it was 
accepted at last by the purchasers, in despair of obtaining 
any thing else. The Planters — Williams among them — never 
reposed the same confidence in Miantonomi, as in the great 
Sachem Canonicus. It was deemed expedient to procure the 
confirmation of the heir to the Narragansett throne, as no 
one could be sure as to his future disposition. His prospect 
of long life seemed fair. No one anticipated his murder by 
the consent or order of the United Colonies, with the approval 
of the elders. f His renewed assent to his gift or grant was 
regarded by all parties as worth purchasing, as a security for 
the future. It was readily given, and as against the Indians, 
the title seemed to Williams to be complete. William Harris, 
with greater forecast than his neighbors, saw at once that the 
lands within the bounds of the Indian purchase were insuffi- 
cient for an English plantation. Canonicus was willing to 
give a larger tract, but the inferior sachems in the neighbor- 
hood of Providence, made such a clamour that the gift was 
curtailed, as in the memorandum. Williams says expressly, 
" the sachems and I, were hurried (by y'' envie of some against 
myselfe) to those short bounds, by reason of y^ Indians then 
at Mashapog, Notakunhanet & Pawtucket, beyond whom the 

*William Harris says that a deed was after drawn up in proper form, 
and was tendered to Williams, but that he refused to execute it. 
fSee Savage's Winthrop. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 9 

sachems could not then go," &c.* Harris undertook to supply 
the defect by the clause which gave occasion to so much 
wrath in the future. The words attracted but little attention 
at the time. It was claimed at a later day by the Proprietors, 
that they gave to Williams's grantees the entire fee simple of 
the town, from the west side of the Seekonk River to the 
Colony of Connecticut. We shall meet this clause again, — 
" up streams without limits," &c., the question whether the 
rights which it conveyed were corporeal or incorporeal. 

As if these embarrassments were insufficient, the Indian 
grantors of Mooshassuc knew nothing of the English lan- 
guage, and had no written discourse of their own. There is 
little reason to believe that they understood their concession 
in the same sense in which it was received and paid for by 
the English settlers. The Indians were Socialists in theory 
and practice. All their land belonged to the nation or tribe, 
with only a temporary tiser by the individual members. To 
the end, they never comprehended or approved the exclusive 
and individual property everywhere asserted by the English- 
man, and never ceased growling over its inconvenience to 
themselves. 

But whatever doubts may have been suggested by the title 
to the soil, the material wants of the settlers for the time 
suspended all other topics. They had lived two years in those 
" filthy smoakie holes," the Narragansett wigwams, and the 
companions of Williams were eager to begin their work. 
They could do little until they had obtained an allotment of 
their homesteads. Williams had procured a title exclusively 
in himself and their first controversy with him was now to 
begin. Its discordant elements came to view in the earliest 
days of the town. This is Williams's account of its earliest 
political organization : — f 

"The condition of myself, and those few families here plant- 
ing with me, you know full well. We have no patent, nor 
doth the face of magistracy suit with our present condition. 

*See Williams's second letter to John Whipple, Rider's Hist. Tract, 
p. 27. 

fSee Williams's letters, Narr. Club's ed.. Vol. VI., p. 4; Williams to 
Winthrop, p. 4, 1637. 



lO RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

Hitherto, the masters of families have ordinarily met once a 
fortnight & consulted about our common peace, watch & 
plantings, by mutual consent have finished all matters with 
speed & peace. Now of late, some young men, single persons, 
of whom we have much need, being admitted to freedom of 
inhabitation & promising to be subject to the orders made by 
consent of the householders, are discontented with their es- 
tate, & seek the freedom of voting also, & equality," &c. 

The first settlers had on some unknown day, restricted 
the suffrage to married men, who were also heads of families 
— a restriction far from welcome to the class, young and ener- 
getic — but of little wealth, who are the majority in every 
new Plantation. Their request was denied and they remained 
in a state of discontent during nine years. They were then 
enfranchised by a popular commotion which ended the vol- 
untary association, or "town fellowship," and had well nigh 
wrecked the Plantation itself. As to the number of these 
young men at the time when Williams wrote to Winthrop, 
we are not informed, but they must have been a considerable 
proportion of the planters of those early days. 

The founder and many of his associates had not much in 
common. His purpose was threefold : first, to establish a 
a free community in which the State should have no author- 
ity in matters of religious belief ; second, as akin to this, to 
afford a refuge for fugitives who sought a like enjoyment of 
the freedom of conscience ; third, the religious and moral 
elevation of the Narragansetts. He was not ambitious of 
civil office as the founder of a colony, or of landed wealth, 
such as was the ambition of every one at home. His follow- 
ers did not share his unselfish purposes. Their experience 
of the abuse of power in Massachusetts had made them im- 
patient of all authority whatsoever. With unyielding per- 
tinacity, they watched over their own liberties, and provided 
homesteads only for themselves. The majority manifested 
little sympathy with Williams, except in his negative opinion 
as to what the State should not do. No religious society was 
organized until the autumn of 1638. Out of nearly sixty house- 
holders only twelve united with Williams in its formation. 
During the whole of the seventeenth century, its members 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II 

were a small minority of the townsmen and numbered so few 
adherents that they met in the small dwellings of those days, 
and a meeting-house was not required until A. D. 1700. The 
Town Meeting would give no invitation to fugitives from 
religious intolerance, and set apart no tract or reservation for 
their benefit. All who came hither, came at their own risk, 
and upon their own responsibility.* The townsmen were not 
historical scholars, but they had seen enough of history en- 
acted in old England to be assured that modern martyrs were 
not always the most agreeable tenants or neighbors, and that 
they often appear to greater advantage in chronicles and 
epitaphs than anywhere else. 

The motives which urged most of the planters of Mooshas- 
suck, seem to have been rather political than religious. They 
had come to Providence for religious liberty, but only a few 
of them showed much desire for an active exercise of its 
rights by setting up any religious assembly. Their chief 
anxiety was to escape from the despotism of Puritan elders, 
and their goverment was "only in civil things." With the 
Narragansetts, the settlers at Mooshassuc felt little sympa- 
thy. Their chief interest in their barbarous neighbors was 
pecuniary — in the trade in beaver-skins and in liquors so ener- 
getically denounced by Williams. Only Williams, and Bene- 
dict Arnold, the Indian interpreter and trader, understood 
their "barbarous rockie speech."f The excessive imports of 
wines and spirits, far beyond the consumption of the English 
settlers, — and all duly entered in the town records, — prove 
what was the chief staple of the Indian trade :|: These fully 
justify Williams's censures of the practices of his fellow- 
townsmen and his forebodings of a bloody retribution. Not 
one of them gave him any aid in his mission or was an enthu- 
siast in any like purpose. 

With these diversities of character and objects, we may 

*In the autumn of 1638, thirteen persons formed the Baptist Society. 
In 1637, there were fifty-four householders in Providence purchase. The 
exact number of the population is not known. 

tSee George Fox digged out, Narr. Club's ed., p. 465. 

JSee Early Records of the Town of Providence, Vol. II., p. 22 and 
Index. 



12 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

well believe that Williams and his associates did not readily 
agree in the ownership or disposal of the estate which had 
come into their hands. In order to see more distinctly their 
mutual relations, let us look at the events of the time. 
Mooshassuc had no charter. The people could not incorpo- 
rate themselves or assume any of the powers of sovereignty. 
There were as yet no other towns capable of uniting in a 
legislature and of wielding for a time some part of the royal 
prerogative. No union with Newport was in view ; there 
was no prospect that there would be any. Great nations were 
little desirous of colonies of such microscopic dimensions. 
There was not even a town government. The settlers felt 
such a dislike for the regime of Massachusetts, that they 
would tolerate nothing but a voluntary association, or " town- 
fellowship." How then could Williams secure the great 
object of his life, and the planters the object of theirs.? He 
wanted little for himself, but how could he secure the build- 
ing up of a town by a people who could not bear heavy taxa- 
tion, and who could hope for few wealthy emigrants } Disputes 
about such matters probably caused the long interval between 
the Sachems' "Memorandum" and Williams's "Initial deed."* 
There must have been a dispute at the outset of a grave 
character, that these homeless settlers denied themselves 
any fixed abodes until it was determined. There was first of 
all (as we have seen), the question of the authority of Wil- 
liams to veto the admission of new inhabitants ; and then, 
what was the meaning of the "Initial deed" } But at length, 
finding that they could extract nothing else from him, the 
townsmen accepted the conveyance, such as it was, with all 
its uncertainties of meaning. Its boundaries are merely a 
reference to those in the Sachems' gift, with no explanations 
to make them clearer. Nothing can be inferred from the want 
of a seal, or witnesses, or of "words of inheritance." These 
were not in general use in Providence, until regular legal 
forms were introduced, in another generation. The deed of 
Williams to his associates was in these words : — 

*From the 24th of March, 1637, to 8th of October, 1638. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 3 

"THE INITIAL DEED " FROM ROGER WILLIAMS OF THE LANDS 
PURCHASED OF CANONICUS AND MIANTONNOMI. 

"Memorandum. That I, R. W., having formerly purchased 
of Canonicus and Miantonomi, this our situation or planta- 
tion of New Providence, viz. the two fresh rivers Wonas, 
and Moosh and the grounds and meadows thereupon, in con- 
sideration of ^30 received from the inhabitants of said place, 
do freely & fully pass, grant and make over, equal right & 
power of enjoying and disposing the same grounds & lands 
unto my loving friends and neighbors S. W. WA. TJ. RC. 
J G, IT, WH WC TO FW. R. W. and E. H. and such others 
as the m^ajor part of us shall admit into the same fellowship 
of vote with us. As also I do freely make & pass over equal 
right & power of enjoying & disposing the said land & ground, 
reaching from the aforesaid rivers unto the great river Paw- 
tuxet with the grass & meadow thereupon, which was so 
lately given & granted by the two aforesaid Sachems to me. 

Witness my hand 

R. W." 

The original of the " Initial deed " is not extant. The 
recorded copy is without date.* It appears that the deed was 
delivered 1637. In another conveyance made for some un- 
known reason, on the eighth of the 9th month, 1638, Wil- 
liams again grants the same lands to such others as the major 
part of us shall admit into the same "fellowship of vote with 
us." 

Here began the great controversy of the Plantations. What 
did this mean } Who were the grantees t What their charac- 
ter and capacity } and what was their estate } They are men- 
tioned only by their initials, as if individuality and personality 
were not regarded. Williams ascribes this singularity in his 
deed to haste and want of time — a strange reason, in a 
matter of such importance, and which was utterly denied by 
Harris. The consideration of £^0 was an entire sum. Such 

*Staples's Annals of Providence, pp. 31, 33. 



14 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

as might be paid by a single corporate grantee, and not by- 
single purchasers, in minute shares. The only succession de- 
scribed by the deed was not a personal succession to one 
and his heirs, but a corporate succession to a perpetual 
body, continued in being by the vote of the entire fellowship, 
which has successors but no heirs* Williams conveys to " such 
others as the major part shall admit into the same fellow- 
ship of vote with us." These words describe the acts of a 
corporate body or guild, which could act by majorities (as 
mere tenants in common could not), and which could dispose 
of its estate only for the use of the whole corporation. If 
the whole of the " Initial " grantees were to hold merely 
equal undivided shares, as tenants in common, how could 
those who were afterwards admitted to the same " fellowship 
of vote" devest the estate already vested in the first grantees .■' 
A mere vote of a town meeting could not transfer vested es- 
tates from one freeholder to another. How was any reserva- 
tion to be made for future sufferers for conscience' sake if 
all the proprietary lands had been already vested in private 
ownership } Williams, as he always maintained, undoubtedly 
believed that he had transferred his Indian purchase to an 
association to hold it in trust until a future town was ready 
to receive it. 

In the " Initial deed," Williams only refers to the first 
"Memorandum" of the Sachems' purchase, without mention 
of the second, containing the clause "up streams without 
limits." If he had believed that any part of his grant was 
incorporeal or a mere right of pasturage, he would have done 
wisely to mention his belief in his memorandum. He would 
have thus saved himself from future censure and mortifica- 
tion. But he was not a lawyer. In his " Initial deed " he 
speaks of his whole purchase as consisting of " lands and 
grounds," and nowhere explains in any extant document that 
he was conveying an estate which was in any part incorporeal. 
He always insisted that the sum of ;^30 was received by him 

*Harris says that the ^30 was only the sum paid to Williams, but that 
the sum paid to extinguish the claims of the Indians made the entire cos; 
to the townsmen ^160. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 5 

as compensation for his labor and expense in visiting the 
Sachems and in procuring the grant, and not for the purchase 
of the land from him by the townsmen. The " Proprietors " 
or " Purchasers " were to pay each thirty shillings for their 
" homelots " six-acre lots and farming lands (lOO acres 
each) and for no more. He had no intention of parting with 
the whole purchase, which had cost so much pains and labor 
for the sole benefit of men who were chiefly strangers to 
him, and to whom he was under no obligations, in order that 
they might make dividends among themselves, as sharehold- 
ers in a private company. 

In this view of his conveyance to his associates, Williams 
persisted during the remainder of his life. He lost no oppor- 
tunity of proclaiming it. Only a few passages need to be 
quoted, which sufficiently prove that Williams believed that 
he had conveyed his purchase in trust to his followers as a 
society and not as individuals. 

I. On the seventh of the 9th month, 1657, Williams exe- 
cuted a deed to James Ellis, of his lands at Whatcheer, 
which he had received from the town.* He inserted in this 
deed a recital of factsnot at all necessary to his conveyance, 
but which he intended as a manifesto to be preserved in the 
town book — a memorial of his original purpose. In it are 
these words, " He parted with his whole purchase unto the 
Township or Commonalty of the then inhabitants."! 

II. In the original agreement establishing the voluntary 
association of the settlers at Providence, to which Williams 
was a party, we read : \ " The town by five men shall give 
every man a deed for all his lands lying within the bounds of 
the Plantations, to hold it by, in after ages."§ 

III. In his letter to John Whipple, 24th of August, 1669,^ 
Williams insists that the disposal of the land should be by 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. no, in, 112. 

fSee Staples's Annals, p. 37. Letter to John Whipple, Rider's Hist 
Tract No. 14, p. 16. 

JStaples's Annals, p. 42. 

§Fifth of 5th mo., 1640, R. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., p. 27, Sec. i. 

IfRider's Hist. Tract No. 14, p. 38. MS. in the Library of the R. I. 
Hist. Society. 



l6 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

the freeholders at large, in the town meeting. "Grant that 
there have been discourses & agitacions many, about y^ lands 
& purchases, yet is it not reasonable & righteous in all men's 
eyes. Y' since there are so many purchasers who ordinarily 
doe not & others y' will not come to y^ Towne Meeting, yet 
their consent should be had, and y^ consent of y^ majorities 
should determine y^ matters of their purchase, & oblige the 
minor differing from them.'^ I understand not yet of the 
dammage of a farthing y' any of you have sustained, or are 
likely to do, from those whom you count your adversaries." 
This passage relates to the claim of the Proprietaries to an 
exclusive right to vote in the town meeting upon all matters 
relating to the proprietary estate.* 

IV. Williams is still more emphatic in his declarations 
respecting the " Initial deed," in his "answer to the Declara- 
tion of William Harris against the Town of Providence, 
seventeenth 9th mo., 1677, so called."f 

" As to my selling them Pawtuxet & Providence It is not 
true that I was such a fool as to sell either of them especially 
as W. H. Saith, 'like an Halter in a market, who gives 
most.' The truth in the holy presence of the Lord is this. 
W. Harris (W. H.), pretending religion, worried me with 
desires that I should admit him & others into fellowship with 
my purchase. I yielded & agreed that the place should be 
for such as destitute (especially for conscience' sake), & that 
each person so admitted, should pay 30^". country pay, towards 
a town stock, and myself have ^^30. towards my charges which 
I have had, ;^28. in broken parcels in five years. Pawtuxet I 
parted with, at a small addition to Providence (for then that 
monstrous bound or business of "up streams without limits" 
was not thought of). W. Harris & the first twelve of Provi- 
dence were restless for Pawtuxet, & I parted with it upon the 
same terms, viz. for the supply of the destitute, & I had a 
loan of them (then dear), when these twelve men, (out of 
pretence of conscience & my desire of peace) had gotten the 

*This will be mentioned again. 
fRider's Hist. Tract No. 14. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 7 

power out of my hands, yet they still yielded to my grand 
desire of propagating a public interest, & confessed them- 
selves but as feoffees for all the many scores who were 
received afterwards,— paid the 30i'//. not to the purchasors so 
called, as Proprietors, but as feoffees for a Town Stock: & 
William ffield the builder of this house, & others, openly told 
the new comers that they must not think that they bought & 
sold the right to all the lands & meadows in common, & lOO 
acres presently, & power of voting, & all for 30^"/^. but that it 
went to a town & public use," &c.* 

It is needless to multiply citations from Williams to prove 
his understanding of his deed to his associates. But they 
had other views of their own rights and interests, and would 
not abandon them without contest. They have left no diaries 
or letters, except a few by William Harris. It appears suffi- 
ciently from Williams's own writings that they had come to 
Providence with no clear understanding of their mutual rela- 
tions.! Williams says in his "answer," "He" {i. e., Wm. 
Harris) " chargeth Roger Williams for taking the land of 
Providence in his own name, which should have been taken 
in the name of those which came up with him." Whether this 
were a correct view of the matter or not, it is certain that 
many of the ablest of the planters of Mooshassuc enter- 
tained it. They were confronted at the outset with the ques- 
tions whether this were to be an Indian mission under the 
direction of Williams or a town, and how far Williams's opin- 
ions were to be authoritative or decisive. They began with 
the debate as to whether the soil were individual property or 
corporate, like the land now held by the city at Field's 
Point, the Dexter Asylum, or Roger Williams Park. It was 
Williams's habit, as we shall see, to act upon his own opin- 

*The house where Williams was then writing, was at that time the 
house of Thomas ffield. It was afterwards "fortified" and was the 
"garrison house" during Philip's War. It was the largest house in 
Providence. It stood upon the lot where the Providence Bank now 
stands, at a short distance eastward from the street. The last of the Field 
owners sold the property to Joseph Brown. Through his family it 
came to the Providence Bank. 

tSee also Rider's Hist. Tract No. 14, pp. 53, 55, 56 57. 



l8 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ions or impulses without consulting others, however their 
rights might be affected by what he did. So it was with re- 
spect to this vague and ineffective "Initial deed." But here 
he had his opponents at a disadvantage. He alone had any 
influence with the sachems, and the townsmen must take 
such a deed as he chose to give them or lose the territory 
altogether. No other person could obtain a grant of it. 

They hesitated during several months. Harris says in his 
"answer," or plea to his majesty's court, that "Williams's writ- 
ing initials in his deed was a mere pretence of haste ; that 
he promised a more formal deed, but that when one was drawn 
& tendered to him he refused to sign it." At last the towns- 
men sullenly acquiesced, — accepted the "Initial deed," — and 
resolved to indemnify themselves in some way. They did so 
effectually. 

There was something to be said in their behalf. From the 
hasty manner of the foundation there had been no definite 
understanding of the views of both parties as there should 
have been. They had all lost something, — the greater part of 
their substance and all their prospects in Massachusetts. 
They doubtless looked for some compensation for their suf- 
ferings beyond the thirty shillings' worth of wilderness land 
which Williams had allowed to each of them. The " Initial 
deed " created no express trust. This was only Williams's 
inference. There were no means of enforcing the applica- 
tion to public purposes of money arising from the sale of 
lots. Here, in the absence of any coercive judicial power, 
was the weak point of Williams's whole machinery. The 
creation and management of city property had been famil- 
iar in England for centuries. But Williams did not seek 
advice from any quarter as to the proper mode of applying 
real estate to specific objects. He had consented to a mere 
government by arbitration, and he had no means of prevent- 
ing the diversion of his grant to any purpose whatsoever. He 
had required no covenants or conditions from his grantees, 
and they, or Harris at least, soon perceived the weakness of 
their obligations. 

Their title was not such as they had expected or desired, 
but as they could obtain no other, they went on under its 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IQ 

security to build and plant. There was no question at the 
time that the estates within their bounds were both perma- 
nent and corporeal. 

That there was dissatisfaction at the first seems evident 
from the fact that the Pawtuxet "purchase" was contempo- 
raneous with the " Initial deed." Williams has not left it a 
secret that the beginning of the town was not in harmony 
and peace. The grave question was left unsettled whether 
the new domain was to be the property of the whole society 
and of its political successors of the same "fellowship of 
vote," the few original settlers receiving only small allot- 
ments of homesteads and farms, or whether they and their 
heirs were to be tenants in common of the whole purchase, 
for their own private use. Williams seems to have been even 
alarmed at the dissatisfaction which he had created among 
his followers by the vague phraseology of his " Initial deed," 
for which he would substitute no other. There was a wide- 
spread uncertainity as to the future. New purchasers were 
arriving to partake of the freedom of Mooshassuc. These 
found the whole tract claimed by a few " purchasers," or "pro- 
prietors," who could at their pleasure exclude any one from 
the soil. These last were equally discontented with the 
small allotments which had been made to them. The separa- 
tion between Proprietors and Freeholders at large began 
thus early. This is Williams's explanation* in his defence 
against William Harris : "I have always been blamed for 
being too mild, & the truth is Chase Brown [a misprint for 
Chad Brown], a wise & Godly soul, now with God, with my- 
self, brought the murmuring after-comers & the first monop- 
olizing twelve to a oneness by arbitration, chosen out of 
ourselves, & Pawtuxet was allowed (only for peace's sake) to 
the first twelve, and the twelve gave me a share, which I ac- 
cepted, after the arbitration." Something must be done to al- 
lay the excitement, and Pawtuxet lands were the price of peace, f 
By an agreement as informal as any of the preceding, and 
perhaps of uncertain date as to month and day, "the meadow 
ground" at Pawtuxet, bounding upon the fresh river upon 

*Rider's Hist. Tract No. 14, p. 58. 

tSee Bartlett's R. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., pp. 19, 20, 21. 



20 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

both sides, "is to be impropriated unto 13 persons being now 
incorporate with our Towne of Providence." The purchase 
money for Pawtuxet (^^20) was to be paid to Roger Williams. 
Harris and the first twelve comers were thus in some 
measure consoled by the grant of large and valuable estates 
for the small homesteads which were their allotments under 
Williams's deed. Among the Pawtuxet men were those who 
retained the greatest sympathy with the civil and religious 
ideas of Boston, as they proved at no distant day. No new 
town was created. Like every thing else, this was left to the 
future. The bounds of the "Pawtuxet purchase" were so 
vague and unskillful that they furnished the material for a 
controversy which lasted more than seventy years. But they 
purchased a present peace and nothing more was expected. 
Had the far-seeing project of Williams been adopted, and had 
the Indian purchase been made a trust-fund, held by the 
town, there would have been, during two or three generations, 
some revenue ; first, for highways and bridges and other 
works of immediate necessity which would have attracted 
immigration, — and afterwards for schools and other public 
institutions, without which free government was impractica- 
ble. The other alternative, which in the end was chosen, 
was the diversion of the whole estate to the profit of a pri- 
vate corporation, without regard to the interest of the com- 
monwealth. Williams, like his followers, was borne away by 
enthusiasm for a rule by popular consent and arbitration. 
When it was too late he found that the unenlightened major- 
ity of his followers could act at their own pleasure. They 
were parties, witnesses and judges in the popular courts 
which they established. 

The twelve grantees of Williams's "Initial deed" soon 
learned by experience that their rough and impracticable es- 
tate could only be managed by a society. During some years 
most of the new comers who had the means of purchasing 
property, were admitted into the " Town Fellowship " and 
became "purchasers," or " proprietors." Immigrants were not 
very many, and during several years the Proprietors were in 
fact the town. So long as this arrangement served their pur- 
pose, they readily agreed that the lands were conveyed to 
them as a society. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 21 

The "report of arbitrators at Providence," " containing pro- 
posals for a form of government,"* agrees that the disposing 
of the lands belonging to the " Town' of Providence shall be 
"in the whole inhabitants, by the choice of five men," "for 
general disposeall." But those who were not Proprietors were 
not yet voters, and it was not then foreseen that they would 
be. Some expenditures for surveys and for the care of the 
estate were needed at an early day. The Proprietors who 
constituted the "Town fellowship," soon formed a private 
society for the care of their estate and to determine whom 
they should admit into their number. Through the original 
defectiveness of the town records and the destruction of 
documents, in 1676, and in later times, the beginning of the 
Proprietors' association cannot now be ascertained, nor the 
circumstances of its origin. It was during many years zeal- 
ous and adroit in its management of the town meeting and 
was not less so after the Proprietors had ceased to be a ma- 
jority of the freemen and while enough of the estate remained 
to be a subject of attack or controversy. 

There was little variety in the occupations of the members 
of the " Town fellowship." It was without skilled artizans, 
mechanics or professional men, and, save Williams, it had no 
man of liberal education. It had no coercive authority— had 
not even a constable, but was merely a voluntary association. 
It was subject from its earliest days to violent discontents 
and disturbances. The purchasers from Williams, the origi- 
nal twelve and their successors, insisted upon the sole en- 
joyment of the " fellowship of vote," in the town meeting. 
The landless younger portion of the society still claimed that 
they should not be excluded from the body politic, as we 
have seen that they claimed at the beginning.! No State or 
society lasts long before its members break into at least 
two parties, and Mooshassuc was no exception to the rule. 
There appeared at an early day the germs of two parties, 
which grew stronger as the town increased, and kept it in 
perpetual turmoil. Some were disappointed in what they 
found here, and some were captious and discontented. Some 

*Bartlett's R. I. Records, Vol. I., Sec. 2, p. 28. 
tWilliams's letter to Winthrop, 1636-7. 



22 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

had come from Massachusetts to escape its intolerance and 
the arbitrary rule of its magistrates and elders. Beyond this, 
which was but negative, they had but few positive opinions 
in common. About twelve families sympathized with Wil- 
liams in his religious opinions, but the majority kept aloof 
from all associations of the kind. Some were noisy declaim- 
ers, like Hugh Bewitt, — only in their element in a contro- 
versy which seemed the more welcome as it was the more 
profitless, — and who seemed better fitted to receive tolera- 
tion than to give it. Some were political agitators like Greg- 
ory Dexter, who had spent their lives in revolutionary 
debates in England, and whose ideas concerning the founda- 
tions of civil authority and property were shadowy and indis- 
tinct. Many of the small freeholders shared with Williams 
in the belief that the lands purchased from the Narragansetts 
were held by the Proprietors assembled in town meeting only 
in trust for the whole body of the "freemen" admitted to 
"inhabitancy." Against all these were the "Proprietors or 
Purchasers," who claimed that the land was administered 
only by the town meeting, for the sole use of those who had 
paid for it and who had borne the burden of the settlement. 
Some of these were among the most prominent citizens, and 
men of no little ability. They saw that Williams's purchase 
would one day be of far greater value, and desired to secure 
for their children the benefit of their fathers' labor. They 
contended that their purchase from Williams was their own 
private estate. These parties were in full activity until the 
Indian war, which brought an unexpected solution of much 
of the difficulty. They were permanent, for they represented 
interests of a permanent character. The feeling that they 
were unjustly treated could not be allayed, while the less 
wealthy freemen saw the most valuable purchases of woods 
and waters restricted to the few, who could limit their own 
numbers and apportion the domain among themselves. 

The "agreement" subscribed by the "second comers," or 
the " second set admitted," contains the terms of "fellowship" 
— we can scarcely call it "citizenship" — in the voluntary 
association at Mooshassuc* 

*See Bartlett's R. I. Col. Records, Vol. I., p. 14. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 23 

The precise time of the arrival of the party of " second 
comers," or the " second set admitted," is not known. It 
included Chad Brown, William and Benedict Arnold, John 
Field, William Wickenden and others, afterwards conspicu- 
ous in town and colony. This was the " agreement " of the 
"second comers:" "We, whose names are hereunder, desir- 
ous to inhabit in the Town of Providence, do promise to sub- 
ject ourselves, in active & passive obedience, to all such 
orders or agreements as shall be made for public good of the 
body in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present 
inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together in a 
town fellowship, and others whom they shall admit with 
them, only in civil things." The whole Government was to be 
by consent and arbitration, and the right of voting was re- 
served to heads of families. All others admitted subscribed 
some similar writing or agreement. As immigrants arrived 
after 1638, — few indeed in numbers during the first years, — 
they were subjected to a strict examination by the town 
meeting. During several years this town meeting was com- 
posed of "Purchasers ;" i. e., holders of Proprietors' shares 
alone. Their scrutiny was rigorous. Little was left unknown 
as to the candidate — who he was, whence he came, and how 
much he brought with him. If he possessed sufficient means, 
few objections were interposed. Solvency has at all times 
held the same place in Rhode Island which Puritan orthodoxy 
once occupied in Massachusetts. If an aspirant to the "town 
fellowship" showed himself to be in no danger of becoming 
chargeable to the public, his future brethren charitably con- 
cluded that he was sufficiently orthodox to have his abode 
among them. After being admitted as "an inhabitant" he 
then applied to the Proprietors as a distinct association for 
leave to become a purchaser of a "Proprietor's right," or 
"share." To each person thus admitted, there was measured 
out by the "Proprietors' surveyors," one hundred acres of 
meadow or other land, a "six acre lot," or a "stated common 
lot," as near as might be to his homestead, and a "house lot," 
or "home share," of about six acres with a front of from sixty 
to eighty feet on the "Town streete," and extending back- 
ward to the swamp, where is now Hope Street. The proprie- 



24 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

tors' surveyors were directed to make their returns to the 
town meeting. As appurtenant to these grants, the new 
"proprietor" had also his fractional share in the purchase 
money arising from future sales of Proprietors' lands. He 
was not required by any law, deed, or custom to account for 
it to the town treasurer. The town meeting in due time con- 
firmed the surveyors' return, and the vote was entered in the 
"Town booke." The survey and its confirmation were gener- 
ally the sole evidences of the title. Few deeds were executed 
in Providence during the years of the first charter. Only one 
book was used for all public records. The meetings of the 
same persons as proprietors of the purchase and as freemen 
of the town were holden at the same time and place. They 
both had the same moderator and clerk and were in all re- 
spects but one body, save that in later days, when the owners 
of small freeholds had become voters, the Proprietors only 
were admitted to vote upon matters relating to the so-called 
"common lands." The proceedings of both bodies were en- 
tered indiscriminately in the "Town booke," and it is not 
always clear in which capacity an act was done. 

The most conspicuous figures in this contentious little 
assembly were Roger Williams, William Harris and Thomas 
Olney. All of them were men of resolute will, and Harris 
and Olney had no little executive ability, in which Williams 
was especially wanting. Williams was at the head of the 
popular party and Olney and Harris were the leaders of the 
Proprietors. Olney found that the care of his religious soci- 
ety did not require so much of his attention as to prevent his 
transacting a large part of the business of the town in the 
town clerk's office and elsewhere. In that age politics were 
controlled by religious doctrines, which also colored all Eng- 
lish radicalism. This did not then as now attack the great 
biblical institution of landed property, or even the English 
modification of it. Olney, who stood in the front rank of the 
political liberals of his day, was as firmly devoted to the landed 
interest in Providence as the staunchest churchman could 
have been. The lines which then divided political parties 
often coincided with those of religious sects. The Proprietors 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 2$ 

dence, who was one of the heads of its only religious society, 
was wholly devoted to their interests. Harris had equal in- 
fluence over that increasing body of freemen, whose devo- 
tional spirit was their least conspicuous characteristic. As 
time went on the Proprietors at large became weary of the 
contentions about private matters, which formed so large a 
share of public business. Thus says Williams, 24th August, 
1669, so called : " Grant that there have been discourses & 
agitations many, about y^ lands and purchasers, yet is it not 
reasonable & righteous in all men's eyes, y' since there are 
so many purchasers who ordinarily doe not & others that will 
not come to y^ towne meeting, yet their consent should be 
had, & the consent of that majoritie should determine the 
matters of their purchase, & oblige the minor, differing from 
them."* All such absentees were willing to leave their inter- 
ests in the charge of Olney and Harris. At a very early 
period the whole body of Proprietors become strongly organ- 
ized, with able and sagacious representatives. These retained 
their leadership during life and handed it on to successors in 
a generation when the Proprietors were far less than the ma- 
jority of the town.f 

Other causes for the scanty attendance at the town meet- 
ings might be found. In the early days of the town each 
householder was authorized to leave one man of his family at 
home on town meeting and training days, as a safeguard 
against Indians. It was, as years went on, yet more difficult 
to procure a quorum in an assembly where all legislative, ex- 
ecutive and judicial business was transacted by the same 
body as was also that of sales and exchange of lands. Special 
meetings could also be called on the requisition of any free- 
man who fancied that he had an affair of his own of sufficient 
importance to be inflicted upon his neighbors. 

These rude political arrangements, with all their difficulties 
about boundary lines, majorities and special town meetings, 

*Williams, as we have seen, always desired that the majority of the 
whole town meeting should decide upon sales of the town lands, and not 
the majority of the Proprietors alone, but he met with no success unto 
the end of his days. 

fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 77. 



26 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

answered the purpose of the settlers, so long as their num- 
bers were but few. The written memorials of the first ten 
years of the town, are now, if they have not always been, 
very scanty and imperfect. They give a vague and indistinct 
view of its affairs. Yet there are indications that controver 
sies were numerous and acrid even at that early day. The 
voluntary association, or "town fellowship," which endeav- 
ored to supply the place of government, but without coercive 
force, was but ill adapted to a community in which there was 
any considerable number of discontented people. It could 
only work harmoniously so long as the association of Propri- 
etors was nearly coextensive with the town. The machine 
was in danger of going to pieces so soon as any considerable 
body of the inhabitants refused farther assent to a voluntary 
agreement, by which the townsmen were subjected to a close 
corporation of the first settlers. This occurred at an early 
period, but we have scanty information respecting the 
details. 

The doctrine that civil government was nothing but a vol- 
untary agreement, and that judicial authority was mere 
arbitration, did not tend to strengthen the State. Disorders 
began at an early day, and the town had no courts or magis- 
trates which could repress them, — not even a constable. 
Young and landless men looked with envy upon "Proprietors" 
who were, or claimed to be, the sole owners of the unsold 
lands, and would not, if they could, prevent it, endure a mo- 
nopoly of what seemed to be the gifts of nature. In England, 
at that day, when old opinions and institutions were becoming 
unsettled and were ready to fall, obscure religious fanatics 
began to hold forth doctrines about property, which all 
Christian denominations now repudiate and which belong 
only to the platform of atheism and anarchy. Some few, 
such as these, may have found their way to Providence, even 
at that early day. The smaller freeholders felt little scruple 
in helping themselves from the "common lands" whenever 
they needed timber, firewood or supplies, or food for their 
goats and swine, then a large part of their sustenance. Some 
of their acts were prompted by recklessness and malice, — 
such were the cutting down of trees bearing surveyor's land- 
marks. The Proprietors made, it seems, some feeble attempts 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 27 

to restrain trespassers. They only succeeded in irritating 
and increasing the prevailing discontents.* Enmity between 
classes went on and the acrimonious discussions which at- 
tended it. Every thing was prepared for an onslaught upon 
the voluntary association, so soon as a leader should appear. 
He was not far to seek, for it was an age of revolutionary 
ideas. I have in a former paper reviewed at some length the 
life and character of Samuel Gorton, Little more needs to 
be said at present than that he was possessed of more literary 
education than any of the founders, save Williams. He was 
acquainted with Hebrew and with the Greek of the New 
Testatment, and had a large acquaintance with the contro- 
versies then resounding upon every side. He could suggest 
doubts and difficulties respecting a great variety of religious 
topics, although he had no well-defined system of his own. 
In law and politics he understood his rights as an English- 
man, better than did Williams or the Proprietors, or the 
elders and magistrates of Massachusetts. He knew that they 
had no right to banish or expel him from their territory, and 
against them he appears to have asserted no propositions 
which he could not legally maintain. He avowed monarchical 
opinions of the old Biblical pattern and showed small respect 
for any colonial government which had not legal authority, 
meaning thereby, the sanction of the crown. He deferred 
to the authority of Massachusetts, for Massachusetts had a 
charter and was administered in the king's name. Gorton 
well knew that in the view of Westminster Hall, the Propri- 
etors of Mooshassuc were only squatters upon the king's 
domain, who were bent upon closing it against all other 
squatters but themselves. He had never become a party to 
their voluntary association, for he knew that it was merely 
void. He then, as at all other times, showed the courage of 
his convictions and a wonderful talent for being disagreeable 
to all whose belief and practices differed from his own. He 
was always ready to defy any authority which did not proceed 
from the Crown. He was no anarchist or bawler of what he 
deemed a philosophical theory of property and rights, to be 
put in force at the expense of other people. If he told the 

*A11 these things happened after the incorporation of the town, and 
there is no reason to doubt that they were even more common before it. 



28 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

Proprietors of Mooshassuc that their land monopoly was in- 
valid, — that they had no rights by a private agreement of their 
own to exclude the king's subjects from the king's domains, 
he was not far from the truth. We know the character of his 
doctrine only by its reflex effect upon Williams and Harris. 
He was himself a landholder. He was no otherwise an atheist 
or fomenter of sedition than as any one who denied the au- 
thority of Massachusetts elders would have been so repre- 
sented by them, or than as one who claimed against them the 
rights of a British subject under the common law.* Gorton 
was no moneyless adventurer. His father had been a Lon- 
don merchant and a member of a guild, and his own wealth 
(from the length and persistence of his legal controversies in 
England) seems to have exceeded that of any of the Propri- 
etors of Mooshassuc. Gorton settled in Providence sometime 
before the 17th of November, 1641, and in January, 1642, he 
purchased land at Pawtuxet. Soon after his arrival here he 
began, as was his wont, to look about him for what was rotten 
in the State, and there was no lack of those who were ready 
to point it out to him. There were here young men discon- 
tented with their political disabilities, who had not found 
here the equality which had been promised them, or which 
they had promised to themselves. Others had found no sat- 
isfactory administration of justice. Gorton felt little respect 
for the doctrinal peculiarities of either Williams or of his 
opponents, and was quite their equal as a disputant. In a 
society which numbered such leading men as Gregory Dex- 
ter, he was in no want of aid in an attack upon the rule of 
the Proprietors. The outbreak was not sudden. The way 
had been prepared for it by the discussions of the title of 
Williams's grantees, and by the unfriendly relations of the 
early freemen. The landless young men gave to Gorton ready 
audience. The excitement spread among the small freehold- 
ers, and soon Williams was apprehensive that their whole 

*His banishment from Massachusetts and from Plymouth is not to his 
discredit. It was a proceeding unknown to the common law, and was 
inflicted upon many whom we do not esteem the less on that account. 
He was legally right in his contentions in Massachusetts and Plymouth. 
His error was, in supposing that the elders and magistrates would re- 
spect any law but their own arbitrary will. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 29 

polity would be at an end. The topics of Gorton's discourses 
here are nowhere distinctly set forth. They were probably 
not unlike those which he had discussed elsewhere — the want 
of any legal foundation for political rule. He found here no 
religious establishment to be an object of attack, but the so- 
called "town fellowship" was even more objectionable than 
that of Newport or even than the Corporation of Massachu- 
setts Bay. It is obvious that the old grievance of the pro- 
prietors' title to the whole territory and their virtual monopoly 
of power were at the bottom of all the trouble. There is no 
improbability in Winthrop's account of its beginning.* 

Some attack had been made by the Proprietors upon those 
who allowed their swine to run at large upon the "common."! 
This was followed by forcible resistance and the uproar be- 
gan, Winthrop was probably misinformed in his statement 
that "the parties came armed into the field," or that it was a 
contest into which any religious element at that time en- 
tered. The settlers did not care enough about ministers 
or denominations to iight either for them or against them. 
There was no need of armed resistance to the majority, or of 
a violent or bloody revolution. The town and its officers 
were but a voluntary association, and by the refusal of a 
minority to fulfill their agreement, the " town fellowship " 
was at an end. There was, as yet, no legislature and no coer- 
cive force in any quarter. Massachusetts and Connecticut 
did not interfere. They were content to look on and wait 
until the Rhode Island towns fell to pieces, and then, as at 
Pawtuxet and Newport, they could come in and gather up the 
fragments. 

We know not how long the tumult lasted. The town rec- 
ords of that time have perished, even if they have not been 
voluntarily suppressed. Their affairs must have seemed well- 
nigh desperate when the leading Proprietors could have 
addressed their letter to the government of Massachusetts, 
asking its aid and protection. $ By this address it appears 

*Winthrop's Journal (Savage's ed.), Vol. II., p. 59, "The trouble in 
Providence began about a trespass of swine." 

tLegislation upon this subject was frequent during the early years of 
the town. 

tThe letter of William Field, William Harris and eleven others, is 
contained in second Vol. R. I. Hist. Coll., Appendix II., pp. 19 to 23. 



30 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

that there were daily tumults and affrays, caused by the at- 
tempts of the freemen, under stress of necessity, as they 
averred, to obtain subsistence for themselves and their cat- 
tle from the wild lands, and by the endeavors of the Proprie- 
tors to arrest the depredators, followed by their forcible 
resistance, so that the peace of the town was at an end. 
Winthrop's Journal, by Savage,- Vol. II., p. 59 : " We told 
them that except they did subject themselves to some juris- 
diction, either Plymouth or ours, we had no calling or war- 
rant to interfere in their contentions." Winthrop speaks of 
the writers — the leading Proprietors — as the "weaker 
party," as they undoubtedly were. The dignified reply of 
Massachusetts taught to all parties a useful lesson by which 
they did not fail to profit in the near future. 

This is the only public document of the controversy which 
is extant. It suflficiently exhibits the public alarm and excite- 
ment when the men who had fled from Massachusetts five 
years before, now besought its armed interference in their 
behalf. 

In the midst of the panic, Williams did not lose his self- 
possession. Perhaps he was not wholly displeased at what 
seemed the overthrow of those who had thwarted his own 
cherished designs. He did not unite in the letter to Massa- 
chusetts. His only reference to the whole affair is in his 
private correspondence with Governor Winthrop (Narra- 
gansett Club's ed., Williams's letters, p. 141), Providence, 
March 8, 1646,* concerning Samuel Gorton. " Master Gor- 
ton having foully abused high & low at Aquidneck is now 
bewitching & bemadding poor Providence, both with his un- 
clean & foul censures of all the ministers of this country 
(for which I myself have in Christ's name withstood him) & 
also denying all visible & external ordinances, in depth of 
familism, against which I have a little disputed & written, & 
shall (the Most High assenting) to death. Paul said of Asia 
— Inhabitants of Providence (almost all) suck in his poison 
as at first they did at Aquidneck. Some, few & myself with- 
stand his inhabitation & town privileges, without his confes- 

*There seems to be some error in the date as printed. Gorton was in 
England from 1644 to 1648, prosecuting his suit against Massachusetts. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 3 1 

sion & reformation of his uncivill & inhuman practices at 
Portsmouth. Yet the tide is too strong against us & I feare 
(if the framer of hearts help not), it will force me to little 
Patience, a little isle near to your Prudence," &c. It seems 
that after civil broils had in some degree subsided, Gorton 
resumed his polemics upon doctrinal matters and that from 
their effect upon the general opinions of the townsmen, Wil- 
liams's alarm began. His sympathy with the men by whose 
arbitrary will he had been banished, and who not long after- 
wards murdered Miantonomo, whipped Obadiah Holmes, the 
Baptist, and hanged Quakers on Boston Common, will be 
remarked by the reader of this extract. There is but little 
other reference to Gorton in Williams's extant letters.* But 
a natural termination came to this tumult also. The volun- 
tary association was as powerless to give redress to the poor 
freemen as to the proprietors. After some weeks or months 
of disturbance it left both where they began. Gorton's lack 
of executive ability and his restless disposition, did for the 
Proprietors more than they could have done for themselves. 
He saw a more inviting prospect in Pawtuxet and Warwick. 
He speedily availed himself of it and withdrew Williams 
came to the aid of his old opponents and assisted in restoring 
order. (See his letter, p. 149, Narragansett Club's edition.) 
The Proprietors who had converted his public trust into a 
land speculation had looked on with dismay. They now took 
heart again as they found that other parties were ready to 
join them in an effective government. They saw that they 
could not safely reject all the lessons which they had learned 
in England and in Massachusetts. If they hoped to exist as 
a community they must have a government. 

This cloud passed over, but all parties saw that they must 
modify their projects and make some concessions. The 
Proprietors learned that their monopoly would avail them 
little in a community where property had only the support of 
a voluntary association. The dissentients saw that they could 
not afford to give to Massachusetts any opportunity for in- 
tervention, and all — that unless they put some restraint upon 

*See also Winslow's "Hypocrisie Unmasked," p. 150, and Williams's 
letter to the town of Providence, urging peace between the parties. 



32 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

their tendency to disorder, England, then becoming Puritan, 
would soon interfere in a fashion not agreeable to any, and 
would probably introduce among them a class of fellow- 
citizens and public officers whose notions of religious freedom 
were very unlike their own. Some of the Proprietors, like 
William Harris, were capable of thought upon political sub- 
jects. They saw the necessity of a legal foundation for their 
establishment and of including some who were not of their 
own body. It was evident, that in order to a harmonious town 
government, the right of voting could not be vested in the 
Proprietors or the house-holders alone. Heretofore, those 
who had been "received as inhabitants," had, if they pos- 
sessed the means, purchased "proprietor's rights," or "shares," 
and had become members of their society. The "second 
comers," before mentioned, had brought some property with 
them. They had accepted the situation as they found it, — 
were zealous supporters of Harris and Olney, and gave little 
aid to Williams in maintaining his theory that the Indian 
purchase was to be "town stock." Some provision must be 
made for the "young men of whom we have much need," 
mentioned by Williams, who were from time to time arriving 
in yet larger numbers and who had but little to invest in 
lands. The Proprietors were divided in opinion. The follow- 
ers of Thomas Olney opposed all concessions, but they were 
overruled by the more enlightened forecast of William Har- 
ris (See Williams's second letter to John Whipple, in Rider's 
Tract No. 14). The dispute ended by the creation of a new 
class of citizens who might become voters, with lower quali- 
fications, which should be within the reach of all reputable 
citizens. 

"The 9th of the nth month, 1645 (January 19, 1645-6). 
We whose names are hereafter subscribed, having obtained 
a free grant of twenty-five acres of land apiece with right of 
commoning according to the said proportion of land from the 
free inhabitants of the Town of Providence, do thankfully 
accept of the same, & do hereby promise to yield active & 
passive obedience to the authority of (King & Parliament) 
established in this Colony, according to our charter, and to 
all such wholesome laws & orders that are or shall be made 
by the major consent of this Town of Providence, as also not 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 33 

to claim any right to the purchase of the said Plantations nor 
any privilege of vote in the town affairs, until we shall be 
received as freemen of the said town of Providence."* This 
" agreement " was drawn up after the granting of the first 
(called the Earl of Warwick's) charter, but before any govern- 
ment had been organized under it. Many signatures of dif- 
ferent dates are appended to the " Quarter-rights men's " 
agreement. They might be admitted to vote, but not to a 
full right of common. It was not intended to create a perma- 
nent class, but only to quiet a present trouble; and it accom- 
plished its purpose. The effects of Gorton's agitation in 
overthrowing the voluntary association or ''town fellowship" 
were permanent and beneficial. But his old enemies never 
forgave him for what he had done towards their downfall 
and carefully treasured up their wrath. 

When the hubbub in Providence was quieted it was not 
easy to induce the other plantations to agree to a union with 
so turbulent a town. The disorders of Providence furnished 
to the men of Pawtuxet one of the chief pretexts for their 
secession to Massachusetts. Their cause of dissatisfaction 
had been at first only a question of land titles or boundaries. 
But in September, 1642, some of the Pawtuxet people 
seceded to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. The town was 
brought into a speedy contest with its old enemies at Boston. 
Only a specimen need be given of the inconveniences which 
her dissentions brought upon Providence, during many dis- 
astrous years. Thus, so late as November 14, 1655. Town 
Meeting-! " Mr. R. Williams, Moderator." Ordered that the 
gathering of the rate at Pawtuxet be suspended until a letter 
be sent to the Massachusetts. " Town Meeting Records 
April 27, 29, 1656. At a Quarter Court, Mr. Roger Williams, 
Moderator * * it is ordered upon receipt of a letter 

*A " right of common " is an incorporeal right of pasturage or other 
easement or profit in the land of another person or of the town. What 
the people of Providence called the " common " or the " common land " 
was the soil itself of which the Proprietors claimed to be tenants in com- 
mon. It was not a "common" in any legal sense, but only unenclosed 
and unimproved land claimed by the Proprietors. 

tEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. 90, 93. 



34 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

from the Governor of the Bay, that a man be sent thither to 
treat about the business of Pawtuxet," Thomas Olney was 
the commissioner. Mooshassuc was forced to submit to the 
commands of Massachusetts to her great injury and loss. 
During several years she derived no revenue from her most 
populous dependency. The secession of Pawtuxet lasted 
until 1658. The planters there had then discovered that 
their gain by absorption into the larger province would be 
but small. They grew weary of the contemptuous patronage 
of Massachusetts and of their inferior position in a colony 
from which they had hoped for greater freedom and security. 
Massachusetts was willing to let them go and troubled them 
no more. A like dissatisfaction prevailed in Newport even 
,after the Earl of Warwick's charter, and led to equally dis- 
astrous results in the secession of Coddington. The laws of 
Newport were not unlike those of Providence, but she was 
more vigorous in their execution. She made no boast of 
being a voluntary association, but submitted to it only as a 
necessity. The people of Newport were never in cordial 
sympathy with those of Providence in relation to many sub- 
jects pertaining to religion and learning and social life. 
They readily listened to emissaries from Plymouth who urged 
their separation from turbulent Providence and a union with 
their more orderly neighbors of Plymouth. These things be- 
long to the history of the colony — not of the town, but they 
require notice as part of the evil results of the attempts in 
Providence to live without law and to govern without a gov- 
ernment. After they had regained the control of the town 
meeting the Proprietors were supported by all parties in 
their endeavors to effect a union with the other towns. War- 
wick was not reluctant, but the people were few. It was not 
easy to induce the people of Newport to join in an applica- 
tion for a colonial charter. The founders of Newport counted 
among themselves some who had been high in social station in 
Boston, and they did not hesitate to give utterance to their 
opinions about Mooshassuc. Some years passed before any- 
thing could be accomplished, but the obstacles were at last 
overcome. Gorton says (and he is generally accurate in his 
statements) that the Newport men were disturbed by the 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 35 

name of the new colony. It was the colony of Providence 
Plantations. Newport feared that the younger, but more 
numerous and wealthy, town was to become subordinate to 
the older, but smaller and poorer and more disorderly Provi- 
dence. Newport assented at last, and a charter was obtained 
in 1644. But the reluctance of the islanders was so persist- 
ent, that no organization could be effected until 1647. Some 
of the adherents of the voluntary association in Providence 
had learned little by experience, and could not be induced to 
abandon the "town fellowship," even for greater security of 
title, until 1649 — the year of the incorporation of the town 
of Providence. It was now to have a common seal and a 
constable's staff. These ancient signs of authority added 
something to the force of government.* More important was 
the legislative permission to make penal enactments at their 
pleasure. The Proprietors readily seized the opportunity 
thus given for the protection of their own estate. After the 
penalties enacted by the Proprietors against depredators upon 
the "commons," the other voters were not the cause of much 
apprehension. The " Quarter-rights men " were uneducated, 
of humble means, and unable to offer any effectual resist- 
ance to the organized body of Proprietors led by Olney and 
Harris. But the distinction of classes among the voters out- 
lasted the first generation. Their dissentions in the town 
meeting and the town street from time to time broke forth 
with a violence which (from Williams's allusions), we may 
believe, did not always end in words. It mattered not how 
the young men voted upon ordinary matters, so long as they 
had no votes upon questions relating to the Proprietary 
estate. Soon every thing went on as before. The position 
of the Proprietors was rather strengthened than otherwise, 
by the enlargement of the constituency. The "young men" 
of Williams's letter found their "privileges" not wholly a 
gain. On the " ist 2d day in June, 1656," it was "ordered 
that all inhabitants, though not as yet accounted freemen in 
this towne, yet shall be liable to be chosen to doe service in 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. x., 112, 113,114. 27, 2d 
Mo., 1649. " Our constable is to have a staff whereby he is to be known 
to have the authority of a town's constable." 



36 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

this towne;"* i. e., in mending roads and the like hard work, 
although not voters — a species of impressment after the 
fashion of the time. 

The number of citizens was somewhat increased by the 
sales of the property of individual proprietors, as they found 
their private estates inconvenient, or as they died or left the 
colony. Thus, within a few years, there were three distinct 
classes of voters, who had little sympathy with each other — 
the Proprietors, the "Quarter-rights men," and the small 
freeholders at large. These were social distinctions as well 
as differences in estates. The Proprietors soon perceived 
that they had nothing to fear from the small freeholders. At 
a town meeting, May 15, 1658, which was under the control 
of their own body, for Thomas Olney was elected Moderator, 
it was "ordered that all those that enjoy latids in the juris- 
diction of this town are freemen."f The social influence and 
prestige and such education as could be found were with the 
Proprietors, the first owners of the soil. The new freeholders 
were men of small estates, who had been admitted to resi- 
dence and to purchases by the consent (the charity as they 
deemed it) of the proprietary class. Few of them were 
heard in the town meeting or proposed any of its votes.J 

As times went on, the Proprietors ceased to be unanimous. 
A minority of them supported the opinions of Williams. But 
the Proprietors on the other hand could always control the 
votes of a sufficient number of the small freeholders. In the 
town meetings none but Proprietors could vote upon any 
matter touching the proprietary estate. A troublesome free- 
holder could be quieted by a sale of land upon easy terms or 
for a nominal consideration, and thus the Proprietors were 
enabled, during many years, to maintain their authority 
unimpaired. 

The rule of the Proprietors had become so well established 
after Gorton's excitement, — perhaps in consequence of it, — 
that they felt no apprehensions, and went on to develop 

*EarIy Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 94. 
fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 112. 

t During many years the towns fixed the qualifications of their own 
voters. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 37 

their institutions in their own way. However, some among 
them may have dreamed of an ideal liberty the world had as 
yet never seen, and of a rule by merely amicable agreement, 
yet the founders could not escape from the traditions and 
the rivalries of their own race and country. Landed prop- 
erty had been for centuries the ambition of the Englishman. 
It was then, as it has been ever since, the only possession 
which has afforded permanent personal and family distinct- 
ion. The London merchant accumulated the profits of Fleet 
Street and the Strand that he might purchase the manors of 
worn-out feudal families and found a new peerage for himself 
and for his heirs. The serjeant hoarded his fees from the 
strifes of Westminster Hall for a like decoration of the 
chancellorship or chief-justiceship which was in prospect be- 
fore him. A like ambition pervaded all the prosperous 
classes in England — soldiers or civilians. The same could 
not be done in an American colony, but everywhere, in the 
days when moneyed wealth had not reached its modern de- 
velopment, landed estates were the foundation of social rank 
and influence. The English ideal was perhaps most com- 
pletely realized in the royal province of New York. But it 
was recognized and respected even in the humble beginnings 
of the plantations at Mooshassuc. Its founders availed them- 
selves of such means as were at their command, and the 
landed polity which they founded lasted, with few changes, 
during nearly two hundred years. They were not consciously 
founders, but their scheme of government developed itself 
spontaneously out of existing facts. It was not established 
by law or charter and was copied from nothing which the 
townsmen had seen in England or in Massachusetts. It was 
not an ascendency of great landholders, for there were none; 
nor was it a despotic rule of magistrates and elders. All 
these they had left behind. When the colony was first organ- 
ized,* it styled its polity "a democracie;" "that is to say, a 
Government held by y free and voluntary consent of all, or 
y^ greater part of y^ free inhabitants." This word "Democ- 
racie" has served many uses, some of them very unlike those 
of the present day. In Athens, men talked about democracy 

*Vol. I. Bartlett's Colonial Records, 1647, ^^^y 19-21. 



38 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

in a city state, one-half of whose inhabitants were slaves. 
South Carolina might have done the same. They meant by 
it an equality of political rights only among the members of 
the free or ruling classes who were within the pale of the 
Constitution and members of its guild or corporation, what- 
ever the condition of those who were without it — the servile 
element — might be. If the dominant class were graded with 
permanent ranks, titles, guilds, professional, mercantile and 
literary, it was an aristocracy. But if the ruling class had no 
legal titles or distinctions, however wide might be the dis- 
tinction of social rank, personal inequality did not prevent 
its being styled a democracy even though the laboring classes 
were slaves. The third generation of the landed democracy 
of Rhode Island offered little opposition to the establishment 
of slavery so soon as the people could afford it, as the first 
generation had sanctioned the distinction of the Proprietors 
and the Quarter-rights men. 

It was not easy to weld so many dissimilar materials into one 
tenacious mass. Men who had lived thirteen years in a vol- 
untary association with the theory that goverment was only a 
mere agreement, binding only upon those who had subscribed 
it, were not easily induced to submit even in "civil things" 
to a coercive jurisdiction, though authenticated by a "common 
seal "and "a constable's staff." Obstinate old habits were 
not easily overcome. Few seem to have given much thought 
to their new relations with each other or with their neighbor 
colonies or with their associated towns. 

They were more anxious to conceal their proceedings from 
the government of England than to enquire how far they 
were entitled to her protection or subject to her control. 
There was little unity of ireligious opinion which might have 
given cohesion to jarring political elements. Massachusetts 
had gained this element of strength by excluding dissenters. 
The Baptists, the first society organized here by Williams, 
were not the majority of Providence. They numbered only 
thirteen families in a community of over fifty householders, 
and soon there was a secession even among them. The re- 
ligious disputes among the townsmen, and which here as 
elsewhere displayed a rancour now unknown, added bitter- 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 39 

ness to political controversy.* Thomas Olney, Sen., was one 
of the successors of Williams in his small society. William 
Harris was one of the seceders. Satisfied with that brief 
experience, he united with no other congregation to the end 
of his days. These were the two leaders of the Proprietors. 
Unity in secular interests superseded all religious differences 
between them. Olney apparently influenced the more relig- 
ious, and Harris the secular, element in politics. They were 
both able men and conducted the affairs of the Proprietors 
with vigor and success. Williams rarely suffered his per- 
sonal resentments to grow cool. During many years when he 
had occasion to speak of Chad Brown, it was always with 
kindly remembrance, gratitude and respect. For Thomas 
Olney, his successor, he has no words of pleasant recollection. 
Where he has need to speak of him it is with the mere mention 
of his name. The first Thomas Olney, an elder in Williams's 
congregation, was a man of courage and tenacity of purpose. 
By his executive ability as clerk of the town and of the Pro- 
prietors he continued to the end of his days a leader in the 
affairs of both. Together, Olney and Harris were more than 
a match for Williams, Dexter, and their supporters. 

The community at Mooshassuc had little to distract its 
attention from its one great topic of debate. It was far 
away from England — heard little of what was going on 
there, and that little long after the event. With Massachu- 
setts their intercourse and correspondence were infrequent. 
Their chief anxiety was whether the "Bay people" intended 
to seize and annex their territory. They had no great po- 
litical questions of their own. Religious topics — the great 
political topics of the 17th century — were, by general con- 
sent, excluded from the town meeting. They had ample 

*See Backus's History of the Baptists, Vol. III., p. 217. "The unruly- 
passions of some among them (/. e., the Baptist Society in Providence), 
with other things, caused such scruples in Williams's mind in about four 
months that he refrained from administering or partaking of special ordi- 
nances in any church ever after as long as he lived ; though he would 
preach the gospel and join in social worship with those who agreed with 
him, all his days." 

See also Geo. Fox's A New England Firebrand quenched, pp. 63-68, 
69, 127. 



40 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

leisure to reiterate what had been said often enough in the 
"towne streete" and at the town mill without changing the 
opinion of any voter as to his own rights or those of the 
Proprietors. 

The "landed democracy" proceeded in their own time and 
way. Even after the purchase of Mooshassuc their position 
was still insecure. The eagerness of Massachusetts to acquire 
the territory around Narragansett Bay, was unabated during 
twenty years. The principles of Rhode Island were gaining 
some converts in Massachusetts and Plymouth and inspired 
anxiety and alarm among the magistrates and elders. What 
could not be done by force might be effected by emigration.* 
What its charter would not permit might be accomplished by 
a few scores of emigrants. These, becoming purchasers, might 
subvert the institutions of Providence and set up those of 
the "Bay people" in their stead. Some security must be 
provided and the Proprietors in town meeting had done it 
effectually. "1637. 16 die 4th mo." (as soon as a treasurer 
had been provided "for expending the town's stock"), 2d year 
of the Plantation.! "Item that none sell his field or his lot 
granted in our liberties to any person but an inhabitant, 
without consent of the town." [It then consisted chiefly of 
Proprietors.] This restriction was needed, the householders 
being as yet but few, that the control of the town might not 
fall into the hands of new comers hostile to the opinions of 
the founders. But in effect during two generations it gave 
to the Proprietors alone the power to determine who should 
be the future voters. In another subject of their legislation 
their wisdom is less conspicuous. They were none of them 

*The right of voting was then (during the first charter government of 
Massachusetts) restricted to such freeholders as were "church members," 
who very soon became a small minority of the people. The secular char- 
acter of the institutions of Rhode Island were a continual incitement to 
the dissenters of Massachusetts. 

fNo originality was required in inventing contrivances for this purpose. 
The same means which had been used by the towns of Massachusetts in 
order to prevent any but Puritans taking up their abode in them were 
equally efficacious in Rhode Island in excluding Puritans themselves. 
See Adams's Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, Vol. II., p. 647. 
Private persons were not permitted to sell their lands without the con- 
sent of the town. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 4I 

merchants and did not desire that their children should ever 
be. The Proprietors of Mooshassuc had the courage of their 
convictions. From the first they showed no hesitation in 
adopting measures which would prevent or delay the rise of 
a commercial town in which their own association might be- 
come insignificant or might vanish away. It was right that 
the town meeting should prevent trespasses upon the home 
lots which it had granted, and reckless waste of timber.* 
Such as these were their earliest regulations : c. g.\ 
"It is agreed that two men should be deputed to view the 
timber on the common and such as have occasion to use 
timber should repair unto them for their advice and counsel 
to fell timber fit for their use, between the shares granted 
and mile end cove. "J 

" That from the sea or river in the West end of the Town 
unto the Swamp in the east side of the fields that no person 
shall fell any wood or timber before any particular man's 
shares end" {i. e., on this side of the "swamp," now Hope 
Street). "Item. That any timber felled by any person, lying 
on the ground above one year after the felling, shall be at 
the Towne's disposeing, beginning at the twenty third die of 
the month above written."§ This is the earliest police regu- 
lation of the town now extant and was a reasonable restraint 
upon mere waste of timber and trespasses upon property, 
such as are common in all new countries. But as times went 
on, the agricultural Propri^etors had become firmly established 

*Adams's Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, p. 658. A. D. 
1646. There were similar laws in many Massachusetts towns against 
exporting timber. 

fVol. I. Bartlett's Colonial Records of Rhode Island, p. 5. This was 
the style of the enactments of the " town fellowship " — "agreed." 

JThere were large intervals between the shares then allotted and the 
water side at the south end of the town. It was built up at first only on 
the east side of the river which " was at the west end " of it. The home 
lots at the south end were not yet sold, in P^bruary, 1637-8, or even allot- 
ted. They were too remote from the centre. 

§There were regulations for the same purpose — the preservation of 
timber— and nearly in the same words in many of the Massachusetts 
towns, from which these may have been transcribed. See Weeden's So- 
cial and Economical History, Vol. I., p. 109. 



42 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

as the chief men of their respective neighborhoods, and such 
they intended to remain. They gave no invitation to mer- 
chants such as they had known in Boston and Salem, whose 
wealth would eclipse their own, and who might subvert their 
religious liberties, which in those days found little favor with 
the prosperous classes anywhere. After a few years the 
town meeting at the dictation of the Proprietors began to 
use the prohibition to fell timber trees as a restraint upon 
shipbuilding and commerce.* Thus, •'27th nth mo. 1650. At 
a Quarter Court, Ordered [this was the style of the newly 
incorporated town meeting] that no person whatsoever, 
whether townsman or other shall carry or cause to be carried 
either directly or indirectly off the common, any fencing 
stuff, botts, pipestaves, clapboards, shingles, pitchlights or 
any other sort of building timber out of this Plantation with- 
out leave from the town, and if any be found so doing, he 
or they shall forfeit to the Town for every tun of fencing 
timber or other building timber, after the rate of 10 shillings 
per tun, for every hundred of clapboards 10 shillings, for 
every hundred of shingles after the rate of 2s. 6d., for every 
hundred weight of pitch wood after the rate of 3i"."t 

This order of the town included Proprietors as well as 
all others. As it did not answer the purpose of the agricul- 
tural Proprietors that the place should become a mart of 
trade, they withheld from sale one of its chief staples. There 
was no lack of timber, the whole country was a great forest 
with only occasional openings of meadow land. Such enact- 
ments from time to time renewed, effectually prevented 
trade with the West Indies and the Spanish Main, for which 
timber, planks and barrel staves were prime necessities. The 
least danger of the town was that of a want of fuel or build- 
ing material. Yet the Proprietors reserved to themselves 
the power to consent to its use as an article of commerce. 
They very sparingly (if at all) granted the permission even 
to their own members. They were successful in their nar- 
row policy. The town was not inferior in resources to any 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. IL, pp. 54, 57, 61. 
fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. IL, pp. 54, 61. See also the order 
of the town meeting, 27th nth mo., 1651. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 43 

of the seacoast towns of New England. But through this 
restrictive legislation it had no fisheries, such as gained the 
earliest wealth of Massachusetts. Nor was there any ship- 
ping in the bay, save the vessels of other colonies, until the 
closing years of the 17th century. This may serve as a speci- 
men of the proprietary zeal for the public interest. They 
were not less vigilant in protecting their own. The legisla- 
ture in the charter of incorporation had authorized the town 
to enact penal laws at its own discretion. The Proprietors 
availed themselves of the opportunity for securing their own 
estate. They established fines, for those days severe, the 
burden of which fell upon the smaller freeholders. Such were 
the penalties for felling timber, for allowing swine and goats 
to run at large in the commons, and later for cutting the thatch 
beds at the mouth of the Wonasquatucket. An act of this 
sort upon the land of a private freeholder was but a trespass, 
the subject of a civil action. Done against the estate of the 
Proprietors it became a criminal offence and could be visited 
by the full power of the law — such as it was, in those days. 
The proprietary rule was now so well established that there 
was no fear of resistance even to an enactment like this : 
"7th 6th mo. 1650.* Ordered that a rate be levied upon the 
estates of men only, excepting lands that lie in common, and 
that the Town Council shall rate the same."f Thus the Pro- 
prietors secured exemption from taxes for all but their indi- 
vidual estates, notwithstanding their claim of the "common 
lands" as their own private property and their receiving for 
their own use the proceeds of the sales. We might believe 
this to have been an act of surprising boldness and unwisdom 
had it not been quietly endured by the freeholders until the 
end of the 17th century. Precisely how this exemption was 
borne we cannot ascertain from the town records. It was 
silently dropped when the Proprietary estate was much di- 
minished. The same men who contended against Williams 
that their purchase from him was their individual property, 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 50. 

tFrom the use of this word f}ten, it was some years later argued that 
women were exempt from taxation, and the claim was in part, during 
several years allowed. 



44 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

now exempted it from public burdens as if it had been as he 
asserted, — a "town stock." The small freeholders could not 
resist the Proprietors. The information doubtless spread 
through the neighbor colonies that the inferior freemen in 
Providence bore an undue share of the public burdens, both 
of town and colony rates, and may, in part, account for the 
small number of those who sought to avail themselves of the 
freedom of the plantations. 

Before many years, other equally singular notions about 
rights to real property became current among these un- 
learned legislators. Some of the Proprietors were not exempt 
from them, and were ready to enforce them upon those of 
their own brethren for whom they felt but little regard. 
There were no charges against Joshua Verin of being in any 
default in payment of taxes upon his private estate (his pro- 
prietary lands were not taxable), yet many of the townsmen 
were of opinion that his proprietary share might be forfeited 
by mere non-residence. He had left the colony after he had 
been censured for violating the liberty of conscience. From 
Salem he addressed the following letter to the townsmen, 
which was read at the town's Quarter-day meeting, April 27, 
1651 : — 

" Gentlemen & Countrymen of the Town of Providence : 
This is to certify you that I look upon my purchase of the 
Town of Providence, to be my lawful right. In my travel I 
have enquired and do find it recoverable according to law, for 
my coming away could not disinherit me.* Some of you can- 
not but recollect that we six which came first, should have 
the first convenience. As it was put in practice by our house 
lots & second by the meadows in Wonasquatucket River. 
And then those that were admitted by us, into the purchase, 
to have the next which were about ; but it is contrary to law, 

*Weeden's Social and Economical History of New England, Vol. L, 
p. 270. In the earliest settled towns of Massachusetts it was not an un- 
common condition of the sales to the first grantees, that the lands should 
be forfeited if certain improvements were not made within a definite 
time. But such cases were not like that of Verin. He had been in pos- 
session by himself or by his agents during more than ten years— had built 
for himself a house. And it is not charged against him that his taxes 
were in arrears. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 45 

reason & equity, for to dispose of my part without consent. 
Therefore, deal not worse with me, than with the Indians, for 
we made conscience of purchasing it of them, and hazarded 
our lives. Therefore we need not, nor any of us ought to be 
denied of our purchase. So, hoping you will take it into seri- 
ous consideration and to give me reasonable satisfaction. 
I rest, yours in the way of right and equity, 

Joshua Verin." 
From Salem, the 21st November, 1650. 

Men of understanding could not fail to see the disastrous 
consequences to the town (and to themselves also), of such a 
precedent as this. Who of them could foretell what might be 
done by a popular majority, if he himself should become un- 
popular in his turn ? Forfeitures and confiscation were 
familiar in old England in that age, and this might be the 
beginning of the like practices here. It required the influence 
of William Harris, Thomas Olney, Epenetus Olney, and later 
on of John Whipple, to prevent the appropriation of Verin's 
estate by the town meeting.* 

The curt answer of Gregory Dexter, the town clerk, shows 
that some proceedings had been commenced.! " The Town 
of Providence having received, read & considered yours 
dated the 21st November 1650, have ordered me to signify 
unto you, that if fou shall come into court, & prove your 
right, they will do you justice." per me 

Gregory Dexter, Town Clerk. 

In this case the townsmen would have adjudicated a claim 
in which they were themselves plaintiffs. Gregory Dexter 
was one of the radical leaders of his times, and probably a 
promoter of the suit against Verin. When the Proprietors 
recovered their old ascendency they dropped Dexter from the 
clerkship, a place of great influence and profit for those days. 

*See Bartlett's Colonial Records of Rhode Island, Vol. I., p. 17. 
Verin's letter contains some historical details concerning the plantation 
which are not elsewhere preserved. 

fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. 55, 56. 



46 - RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

John Whipple came to Providence from Dorchester, Mass., 
in 1659. He brought with him a larger property than was 
commonly possessed by the immigrants of that day. He was 
received as an inhabitant of the town, purchased a Proprie- 
tors' share,* and soon became a leading citizen and a zealous 
supporter of Harris and Olney. [Williams's second letter to 
Whipple, Rider's Tract No. 14.] Williams says that he was 
a constant speaker in town meetings (p. 42), and evidently 
regarded him as one of his chief opponents. He was licensed 
to keep an inn, and during many years kept the principal one 
in Providence in what is now "Constitution Hill." He was 
a man of ability and influence and his inn became the politi- 
cal centre of the town. It seems probable that Williams 
addressed his letters to Whipple, that they might become 
more widely known in what was then the chief club-house of 
the village. He died May 16, 1685. 

Before many years the town meeting began to use the 
privileges which it had granted to the "twenty-five acre 
men," as a means of correction and discipline. Thus, " Oc- 
tober 27, 1659. Thomas Olney, Sen"". Moderator. * * 
Forasmuch as there hath been a Complaint made by some of 
the inhabitants, unto this Court against John Clawson for 
making ttse of the Common, it is therefore ordered by this 
present court, that the Deputies or Deputy of the Towne 
shall forthwith forewarne the said John Clawson to forbear 
in any wise to make use of any of the Common. "f It does 
not appear what was the "head and front" of John Clawson's 
"offending." His name appears in the list of the "twenty- 
five acre men." He had probably not rightly estimated the 
extent of his privileges and made an excessive and indiscreet 
use of them. He was therefore wholly deprived of them and 
was thenceforth to draw no firewood or other household 
stores from the common land. This forfeiture of his rights 
VJ2L.S ex post facto and illegal, but such slight technical diffi- 
culties were of little account before the popular and unlet- 
tered judges of those days. By what right they could, deprive 
one of their co-tenants of his due proportion of common is 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. IL, p. 117, July 27, 1659. 
■j-Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 126. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 47 

not now apparent. But they did it notwithstanding.* For us, 
who have but lately celebrated the centennial of a constitu- 
tion well provided with restraints upon the violation of con- 
tracts and the appropriation of private property to public 
uses, it is difficult to keep in our recollection while reading 
our early records, that during an hundred and fifty years 
there was no check upon the absolute power of a colonial 
assembly, except the uncertain and capricious interposition 
of a royal veto. In Rhode Island, even this security was 
wanting. We may meet with acts of its wholly secular legis- 
lation, quite as despotic as any of those of which its founders 
had complained under the rule of Massachusetts and its 
elders, or in old England under the monarchy of Charles the 
First. 

These two cases of Verin and Clawson are sufficient exam- 
ples of the acts legislative and judicial, which were charac- 
teristic of the first regime in the plantations. They were 
attended by arrangements equally unsafe for the management 
and transfer of real property. Every thing in the early 
records shows the handiwork of men without experience in 
such duties. Their early enactment, that no purchaser should 
sell his lot without leave of the town meeting, was justified 
by the danger that in a small community, unprotected by a 
charter from the Crown, a sufficient number of freeholds 
might be acquired to give to a hostile colony the political 
control of the town. But this was the only security provided 
by law. The transfers of property were without formality or 
precision. No deed was thought necessary until the days of 
the second charter. As the " stated common lots " were but 
small (of some ten or twelve acres each), and were widely 
separated, they did not add much to the wealth of the set- 
tlers. From the constant petitions to exchange or to relay 
them, it might be inferred that they were often a hindrance 
to the culture of the soil.f 

*This proceeding against John Clawson seems very much like a speci- 
men of Massachusetts justice, as dispensed by the magistrates and elders. 
They were ready to make their law for the occasion, without much en- 
quiry whether it were ex post facto or otherwise, provided that it suited 
their own notions of what the case required. 

fFor examples see Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 55. Roger 
Williams asked for liberty to exchange his lands, Sept. 30, 1667. 



48 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

The "Land Records" of Providence, now extant, date from 
1643. The earlier ones perished in the burning of the town 
in 1676.* These records are contained in two ancient books, 
called " the booke with brass clasps," and the "long booke with 
parchment covers." Only a few specimens can be quoted but 
these show the mode of proceeding in those days.f Thus : 
"The 27th nth mo. 1644. William ffield sold unto William 
Wickenden all the share of land called six acres lying upon 
the hill called Fox's Hill, bounding on the east & southeast 
with the land of Francis Wickes, and on the north & north- 
east with the highway. J On the west and northwest, with 
Mile end cove on the south with the sea." 

This entry is without seal, signature or covenants. It is a 
mere certificate by the town clerk, to which the whole town 
meeting were the witnesses. The early transfers, — not deeds, 
— were mere certificates like this. The boundaries of estates 
were perishable and liable to speedy disappearance. During 
many years "wolf traps," or pits and mere stakes or heaps 
of stones were frequently named as monuments. Black and 
white oak trees were comparatively permanent. § 

"The 14th of the 2d month, 1643, at our Monthly Court, 
before us the Deputies, we record || that William ffield sold 
unto Thomas Olney, one (ten) acres of ground lying upon the 
south side of the river called Wonasquatucket, bounding upon 
the land of Thomas Olney on the east, a mere bank on the 
south, of the land of Jane Leare on the west, & a slip of 
meadow of Thomas Olney on the North." 

"The 28th of April, 1654. John ffenner sold unto Robert 
Colwell, the house & houselot which was formerly Richard 
Fray's, lying between Edward Inman's & John Smith's." 

*See the report of the town's committee, appointed soon after Philip's 
War, to ascertain what public documents remained. 

f Early Records of Providence, Vol. IL, p. 5. 

JEarly in this century this was named Wickenden Street. 

§Twenty years later the Proprietors became anxious about the evi- 
dence of their titles and desired better securities. On the 4th of June, 
1666, the town meeting voted that all who desired them, whether Propri- 
etors or twenty-five acre men, might have deeds from the town clerk. 

Early Records of Providence, Vol. IIL, p. 84. 

II Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 6. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 49 

Same day, William Burrough acknowledges to have sold unto 
Arthur ffenner and to Henry, Brown, "one share of meadow 
lying at Neuticonkonet, adjoining unto Pachaset River, with 
five & twenty acres of upland lying on the east & on the west 
side of the meadow." . . "27th January, 1648. Thomas 
Angell of Providence, sold unto James Matteson, a five-acre 
lot lying on the east side of the land which Thomas Clement 
liveth upon, bounded on the east with the land of Benedict 
Arnold, on the north with the sea, as is manifested by a deed 
under his hand." . . . This was rare and exceptional. 
The primitive practice was now changing, as appears by the 
mention of a deed. These were private transfers. The Pro- 
prietor's method was not much more precise 

On the same day, . . "Thomas Harris in the face of the 
court acknowledgeth that he hath sold unto Thomas Clement 
that land which the said Thomas Clement now dwelleth 
upon." No boundaries are given. These open and public 
transfers doubtless served in early times as a security against 
fraud and as a preventive of litigation. They also effectually 
prevented any sales to strangers. "July 24th, 1658, 
Richard Pray hath taken up the sharpe piece of land lying 
near the place where Richard Waterman's great canoe was 
made, for a share of meadow, it being laid out by the Town 
Deputy, it being bounded on the south with a white oak at 
each corner, also on the north with a white oak at each cor- 
ner, on the west with a black oak tree." [This was in the 
neighborhood of the present Steeple Sfreet.] These primi- 
tive land owners felt greater confidence in the perpetuity of 
neighborhoods and homesteads and in the clearness of their 
own recollections than is common among their descendants 
in these latter days. After nearly a quarter of a century of 
experience, they had become aware of the importance of form 
and accuracy, and the transfers are better specimens of the 
draughtsman's skill. Whatever was faulty in the work of the 
conveyancer, was but little aided by that of the "Proprietors' 
Surveyors." The rude instruments of those days produced 
boundaries which later generations often found it difificult to 
identify as those described in their ancestors' deeds. Gen- 



50 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

erations passed away before these irritating controversies 
were laid to rest. To avoid dissentions the Proprietors were 
liberal in their allotments to themselves and to their grantees. 
By an order of the Town Meeting, then wholly controlled by 
the first purchasers,* and which order continued in force 
during many years, the rod was to be measured by the 
" eighteen-foot pole," both in estates and in highways. This 
is still apparent when ancient surveys are re-measured. The 
Proprietary grants were small and the "home lot" was often 
widely separated from the stated " common lot," or from the 
field of ",one hundred acres." Hence, there were frequent 
applications from the grantees to the Town Meeting, that is, 
to the grantors themselves, for leave to surrender or ex- 
change their fields for others in nearer neighborhoods to 
their "home lots." Thus, Roger Williams, 2d June, 1657, 
Early Records, pp. 105, 106, asked and received permission 
to surrender and exchange his allotment. After thirty years 
there was not much improvement. "January 6, 1670-71, laid 
out to Thomas Clemence, by John Whipple Sen"^ Surveyor, 
five acres of lowlands more or less, being measured by the 
18-foot pole, it lying & being on the North side of Wanas- 
quatucket River, against the place called the Goatom, it 
bounding on the south side with the aforesaid Wanasqua- 
tucket river, & on the north with the Common, 81 on the 
south east, partly with the Common, & partly with the afore- 
said river. It being bounded on the Western corner, with a 
maple tree, standing by the aforesaid river side, bounding on 
the northern corner with a rock, [which side of it ?] & so as 
to range to a red oak tree which standeth by the Wonasqua- 
tucket riverside, which tree is on the North side of the river 
aforesaid, against the North eastern end of the hill commonly 
called Solitary hill. This land in form and manner as be- 
fore expressed, was laid out to Thomas Clemence for a five 
acre lot, due to him from the Towne of his purchase right." 
"Recorded by & with the Town's consent January 27 1670- 
or 71. "t This example shows many of the uncertainties to 
which conveyances were then liable. 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 197, 198. 

fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 161, 162. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 5 1 

Whatever defects or uncertainties of bounds could not be 
ascribed to the surveyors, were amply accounted for by pre- 
vious purchases in the neighborhood. The Purchasers' 
grantees often believed — not without reason — that their 
lines were overlapped by new grants or surveys. (Early 
Records, Vol. II., p. in.) Sometimes reckless or revengeful 
persons felled the oak trees which were the sole witnesses of 
titles. The ill-feeling against the Proprietors, which their 
exclusive claims had engendered, gave too much reason to 
believe that this was often prompted by malice.* Hence, 
arose the necessity for penal enactments against any one 
who had entitled himself to the ancient curse against him 
who "removed his neighbour's landmark." The willful fell- 
ing of an ancient tree marked by the surveyor, was an offence 
often equivalent to the destruction of a deed or the forgery 
of a record.f 

After a few years, the Proprietors and their successors be- 
gan to complain that their home lots fell short of the legal 
measure, not reaching the dimensions of the six acres to 
which each one was entitled. It is observable that the com- 
plaint is always of a deficiency and never of an excess. If 
any thing of this sort were observed it speedily passed from 
recollection. It was never made a subject of complaint 
against the surveyors. No offer to restore it appears any- 
where upon the records. 

These proceedings affected men's titles to their home- 
steads and were never free from clamor and dispute. As 
farms became numerous, controversies about bounds multi- 
plied in the same proportion, and a special town meeting 
might be called for any one of them. At length these be- 
came so frequent and wasted so many valuable hours in de- 
bates of interest only to private litigants, that the townsmen 
would not leave their homes in planting time or harvest, at 
the summons of the Town Sergeant.^ As a measure of relief, 

*Harris says that the small freeholders had borne none of the expenses, 
burdens and troubles of the first purchasers, and wished to have the same 
benefits as if they had. 

fSee Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 197, 198. 

JSo much time was spent in adjusting the boundaries of new grants, 
and the Town Meetings became such an annoyance, that it was " ordered" 



52 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

it became necessary to enact that so many as should appear, 
even at a Quarter-day Meeting, should be a legal quorum. 
The discussion of these tedious surveys must often have 
been accomplished in the presence of the ten or even of the 
seven drowsy freeholders who could be persuaded to attend, 
in order to save the meeting from failure. The fact that those 
who had little else to do and whose opinions were of the 
least weight and value, were often a large part of the assem- 
blage, did not tend to sweeten the tempers of the contestants. 
It threw the responsibility of the proceedings chiefly upon 
the town clerk, who was also the clerk of the Proprietors, and 
thus tended to a concentration of power, perhaps not wholly 
needless in such an ill-organized community. 

During twenty years (from 1640 to 1660), these dreary 
debates went on about public and private titles, at the Town 
Meeting and at the town mill. To whom did the Town's 
unsold acres belong ? Little that was new could be said and 
the old straw was threshed over and over again. Neither 
party felt more confidence in the Town Meeting Courts, in 
their knowledge or their independence, than in the "arbi- 
trators " of the old voluntary regime. Questions purely ju- 
dicial, like Verin's, became affairs of town politics. At no 
period of the dispute did any party propose an appeal to 
England. They were never anxious to attract the attention 
either of Charles I. or the military aristocracy of Cromwell, 
styled "the State." The laws of real property had not been 
changed under the Commonwealth or under Cromwell, and 
during his rule some of the ablest of the old Common law- 
yers, Sir Matthew Hale among them, sat upon the " Upper 
Bench." Not to mention the costs, the results seemed too 
uncertain, so great had been the legal irregularities on both 
sides. The townsmen therefore kept the whole controversy 
and its issues in their own hands, and contented themselves 
with gaining such advantages as they might in the Town 

27th October, 1656, "that if on the Quarter Days Company appear not 
according to a former law, then such as meet may proceed to act." 
October i, 1657, "because of the often and present great difficulties in 
getting ten to make a town meeting, that if upon lawful warning, Seven 
only meet, their meeting shall be legal." — Early Records, Vol. II., pp. 
98, 108. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 53 

Meeting. There some maintained, as Williams had always 
done, that his purchase was a "town stock" or public fund, 
of which the Proprietors were only trustees, although they 
had usurped the absolute ownership of the whole domain.* 
This party was numerous among the small freeholders and 
sometimes had the majority on "the great Town's Quarter 
day " and election day. They do not appear to have been 
much restrained in language or to have possessed legal or 
executive ability. The Proprietors were wary and sagacious 
and were better advised and led.f Williams and Gregory 
Dexter, the champions of the small landholders, found an 
overmatch at all points in William Harris and Thomas Olney. 
If Williams asserted that he had intended to create a 
"town stock" or trust fund, Harris had law enough to answer 
him, that he had expressed no such purpose in the " Initial 
Deed," and that a new condition or covenant or construction 
could not be inserted in it by a subsequent declaration of one 
party. If Williams claimed that his wishes were to be de- 
cisive, as to the management of the estate, many were ready 
with the reply, that he had invited them into the wilderness 
and ought to have declared thett what his purposes were, and 
not to have kept them secret until it was too late to retreat. 
They had endured their sufferings and losses, had thrown 
away all chances and opportunities in Massachusetts and ex- 
pected to be repaid. I They in effect did tell him that he had 
created no trust and no means of enforcing the application 
of the purchase money arising from the sale of lots to the 
uses of the Town. Here was the weak point in Williams's 
machinery. He could not prevent the diversion of the fund 
to any other purpose. Courts and Town Meetings, parties 
and witnesses were all the same persons. They had entered 
into no covenants and they meant to insist upon the title as 

*See Williams's " Answer," as he calls it, in the case of William Har- 
ris against the Town of Providence. (Rider's Historical Tract No. 14, 
p. 56.) 

t Harris had some law books which he had carefully studied. One of 
them was " Coke upon Littleton," the great bible of the real property 
lawers of old time. 

IHarris says (MS. letter) that their expenses in buying off Indian 
claims were £160 above what they paid to Williams. 



54 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

they had received it.* There was something to be said, and 
it was said harshly and sharply on both sides. Williams had 
doubtless intended — we have his constant assertion of it — 
that the beneficial enjoyment of his purchase should be co- 
extensive with the town or "fellowship of vote." He looked 
forward to a common interest of all the householders in the 
ownership of the town lands. Their revenues from sales to 
new comers were to be a fund for public improvements, as 
roads, bridges, &c., in aid of taxes which must fall heavily 
upon a new and poor community. They were not to be merely 
the dividends of a private company. But Williams had com- 
mitted his purchase to a society which could tolerate nothing 
but a voluntary association, which could give him no legal 
redress. He positively denied that the first purchasers had 
paid for any thing but their own homesteads, and maintained 
that he had no intention of converting the "town stock" into 
a private estate for a mere fraction of its people. His de- 
sign was far-seeing and statesmanlike, but it passed his legal 
skill to give effect to it. It is equally true that he had not 
expressed his design in the "Initial Deed" with sufficient 
clearness, if he had expressed it at all, and that he had trusted 
too far to his influence over his associates. (It is uncertain 
whether they knew what his exact purposes were when they 
came here. See his letter to Winthrop, before quoted.) They 
could reply that his work could not be done without them ; 
that they had suffered the same hardships ; that they were 
but ill-compensated for them by small allotments of land 
which he had valued at only thirty shillings each ; that his deed 
to them of the Indian purchase should have been made upon 
mutual consultation and agreement, while he had only ten- 
dered them a conveyance which suited his own theories.f 
Williams had probably anticipated the possession of a 
*Williams had forced the "Initial Deed" upon them and they meant 
to hold him to the letter of his bargain. 

flf Williams could quote Scripture as authority in a question of con- 
veyancing, so also could Harris. He called attention to the fact that the 
words " for the use of cattle," were the same as those used in the book 
of Leviticus to describe the possessions of the Levites, which were, ac- 
cording to the law of Moses, absolute and perpetual estates. Leviticus, 
chap. 25, V. 34. Numbers, chap. 35, v. 3. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 55 

greater authority in the town than had fallen to his share. 
This was a new experience for him — the attempt to retain 
political influence in a community which had no religious 
establishment. Heretofore, he had lived only in States in 
which religion was supported by law, and he had enjoyed the 
deference which its officers received from their fellow- 
citizens. He forgot that only the aid of the civil power had 
made John Cotton the foremost man in Massachusetts. Some 
years went by before the effect of his new development was 
fully perceived, and Williams saw that his opinion was now 
only that of a private citizen like his neighbors. They had 
left Massachusetts in order to rid themselves of the author- 
ity of the puritan ministers, who, when their reasonings failed 
to convince, could invoke the aid of the civil magistrates. 
Williams was not in the habit of consulting with other men 
or of being influenced by their judgment even when their 
rights were affected by his action.* He found that to be 
overruled by a majority, whom he knew to be his inferiors in 
culture and in experience, was a hard lesson to be learned. 
It need not surprise us that he sometimes displayed an irrita- 
bility, natural enough, but to be regretted in a founder and a 
legislator. He was indignant at the defeat of the cherished 
project of his life, and he was not in the habit of giving to 
his emotions any subdued expression. It was not the cus- 
tom of those days to be choice in epithets when one's feelings 
were excited, and he was no exception to the fashion of his 
time. His example furnished a precedent and a temptation 
to others. Unity, even in matters relating to their own in- 
terests, was destroyed.! There were no vessels, not even 
fishing craft, such as Massachusetts in her earliest days pat- 
ronized and encouraged. Population did not flow in to avail 
itself of the freedom of Mooshassuc. Men would not coop- 
erate even in building up the town. As for example : Mr. 
ffoote, who had learned the craft in England, proposed to set 
up iron works in a region now known to us as Cranston. Wil- 
liams favored the project, but the local feuds were so bitter 

*See Richard Scott's letter in Fox's " New England's Firebrand 
Quenched." 

fSee Bartlett's Colonial Records. 



56 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

that the townsmen would not join even in this useful work, 
and the projector departed, it seems, to aid in building up the 
fortunes of New Jersey. (The Proprietors built no vessels 
for themselves and would not allow any others to pay a price 
for the timber or to engage in any commercial business.)* 

As might have been expected, there were but few indications 
of increasing population. Immigrants were not many, and of 
those who fixed their abode here not many sought admission 
as "freemen of the colony."f 

Even in these latter days the benignity of men's spirits is 
little increased by so many adverse circumstances. The con- 
troversy about the town lands went on, in its only forum, the 
Town Meeting, and at the only other place of concourse, 
"the town mill." No practical measure was presented to give 
a solution to the difficulty. There were only debates which 
threatened to be as endless as they were useless, and which 
sometimes proceeded from abuse to violence. Williams was 
not without skill in the old 17th century art of reviling, in 
scripture language, and we may well believe that many of his 
fellow-citizens were not far behind him. 

This went on until 165 1. The colony was now satisfied 
that better securities were required to protect it against its 
neighbors and against itself. In that year Roger Williams 
and John Clarke were sent to England as agents of the colony 
to obtain, if possible, a new and better charter. Williams 
soon learned that there was not at that time much hope of 
obtaining from the Puritan government a charter embody- 
ing his own cherished ideas. During many months he per- 
severed in the attempt, and the latter part of his sojourn in 
England was passed at Belleau, the country-seat of Sir Henry 
Vane. While there the chief topic of Williams's conversation 
must have been furnished by the affairs of New England, and 
he set forth his own views of Rhode Island politics with his 
accustomed warmth and zeal. At the close of his visit to Bel- 

*Weeden (Soc. and Econ. History of N. E.), Vol. i, pp. 137, 151, cites 
authorities to prove that vessels were built in Newport so early as 1646- 
But in Providence there were none until the 17th century was drawing 
to a close. 

fWm. Harris says, that just before the Indian War (1676), the popula- 
tion of the township was about five hundred souls. (MS. letter.) 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 57 

leau, which was also the end of his visit to England, Williams 
persuaded Vane to embody in a letter his views of the con- 
duct and behavior of the people of Rhode Island. The facts 
on which his censures were grounded were furnished by Wil- 
liams. Harris and Thomas Olney were not there to modify 
them or to suggest that there might be another side to the 
controversy. However partial it might be in setting forth 
the views of Williams alone, the letter does honor to Sir 
Henry Vane's feeling in behalf of the distracted colony. It 
was the sharpest letter ever addressed to the people of Rhode 
Island.* Vane keenly reproves them for their "divisions," 
"headiness," "tumults," "disorders," and "injustice," and 
asks, " Are there no wise men among you ? No public, self- 
denying spirits that at least upon the grounds of public 
safety, equity and prudence, can find out some way or means 
of union and reconciliation for you among themselves before 
you become a prey to common enemies?" He judges that it 
must be a "high and dangerous distemper " for which kind 
and simple remedies are ineffectual. He advises the appoint- 
ment of commissioners to adjust their difficulties. But none 
such could be found in Rhode Island. Massachusetts and 
Connecticut were willing to see the dispute go on, in hope 
to profit by it, however it might end. There were disquiets 
and disturbances in every part of the colony, and the parties 
to each were ready to apply Sir Henry Vane's censures to 
their adversaries. If we should at this day attempt to dis- 
tribute his reproaches of the townsmen of Providence among 
those to whom they belong, we might very plausibly ascribe 
the "headiness and injustice" to the Proprietors, and the 
"tumults and disorders" to the freeholders of the Town. By 
being their bearer, Williams adopted and approved the cen- 
sures. Whether it were politic to expose his own influence to 
farther attack, we need not enquire. That it had this effect 
is evident from his own mournful letter to the Town of Prov- 
idence, written August, 1654. "It is said, I am as good as 
banished by yourselves and that both sides wished I might 
never have landed, that the fire of contention might have had 
no stop in burning." This letter is in Williams's best man- 
*Sir Henry Vane's letter was dated at Belleau, 8th February, 1653-54. 



58 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ner. He was self-restrained and guarded in his utterances 
in public documents. It was in his private acts and writings 
that he displayed his ill-judgment. There was one suggestion 
in the letter of Sir Henry Vane to which it behooved the 
townsmen to give heed. They did so. "They were in danger," 
says he, "of becoming a prey to common enemies." Vane 
knew what was going on in England. At the council boards 
of Cromwell, Massachusetts and Connecticut were at work to 
obtain the revocation of the charter of Rhode Island. If they 
were successful, its territory would be divided, and its relig- 
ious guarantees swept away. All knew that Cromwell was 
the fast friend of Massachusetts, and that the danger was not 
ideal. The men of Providence yielded to the necessity, and 
consented to the submission of one of their controversies 
with William Harris to a court named by the Governor of the 
United Colonies. They became for a time more restrained 
and decorous in their proceedings, and then relapsed into 
their old habits. 

Sir Henry Vane's letter was addressed to the Colony and 
not to the Town, and there was no necessity for the Town to 
answer it.* Dexter's reply is evasive. He passes over in si- 
lence the disturbances in Providence, and meekly confesses 
the sins of Coddington and Dyer in Newport. He asserts 
that Providence had always been true to the liberties for the 
sake of which it had been founded. This was true enough, 
but not relevant, as there had been no complaint against 
Providence on that account. Dexter had reason for omitting 
the mention of a controversy in which his own share had been 
both conspicuous and unwise. Williams's popularity and in- 
fluence suffered a temporary eclipse, but it revived, for he 
was a man too valuable and important to be thrown aside. 

As respects the townsmen, much of their turbulence and 
their tendency to quarrels and even to outbreaks in the 
Quarter-day Meetings, may charitably be ascribed to inexpe- 
rience. In Massachusetts, none but members of the Puritan 
parishes were voters while the first charter lasted, and the 

*Williams's letter to Vane was dated August 27, 1654. It was written 
by Williams and signed by Dexter as Town Clerk. Dexter probably 
made some small additions or changes. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 59 

earliest freemen of Mooshassuc numbered among themselves 
but few of these. The graduates of the English Cambridge 
and of the American Harvard exacted the deference of the 
uneducated men, and those who did not yield it had small 
opportunity of a hearing in the Town Meetings. These were 
ruled by the fortunate possessors of wealth, culture and sanc- 
tity, and a man of humble station had small opportunity to 
acquire political experience. When some of these withdrew 
to Mooshassuc it is not surprising that they lacked self-con- 
trol in matters where their interests or their passions were 
concerned. Two hundred and fifty years ago experience in 
public affairs was possessed by comparatively few. The Leg- 
islature of Massachusetts was open only to the elect, and the 
magistrates and elders permitted little adverse debate in par- 
ish meetings. There was but one religious society in Provi- 
dence and that was but a small one. There was no other 
place for speech or discussion, and in the Town Meeting per- 
sonal interests and passions sometimes broke over control 
among'.these unrestrained disputants. The townsmen were, as 
a body, more moderate than their leaders, and when they seri- 
ously disapproved, their censure fell equally upon Williams 
and upon Harris, upon Olney and upon ffield, the leaders, both 
of the Proprietors and of the freeholders. At the present day 
every school has a society of some sort amongst its boys, and 
one of their earliest lessons is, the method of conducting the 
business of a public assembly. Any thing of this kind would 
have been esteemed presumption by those who practiced the 
stern family discipline of the 17th century. The future rulers 
of the Town were left to pick up their political education in 
the rough school of experience. They did so but slowly in 
the first generation at Mooshassuc. 

The earlier records contain allusions to brawls and disturb- 
ances. They sometimes involved the leaders of both parties. 
One specimen will suffice :* "June 4, 1655," . . "R. Wil- 
liams, Moderator. Whereas there hath been great debate 
this day about Tho. Olnie, Robert Williams, Jno. ffield, Will 
Harris and others, concerning the matter of a tumult and 
disturbance in the winter under a pretence of voluntary train- 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 81. 



60 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ing, it was at last concluded by vote, that for the colony's 
sake, who hath chosen Thomas Olnie an assistant, and for 
the public union and peace sakes, it should be passed by and 
no more mentioned." It was now June Quarter-day, and this 
particular quarrel seems to have kept the town in a ferment 
during three or four months. The disputants have left tra- 
ces of their ability behind them. Thomas Olney added polit- 
ical to religious reasons for not cherishing a warm affection 
for Williams. The irritable temper of Williams sometimes 
overcame his judgment, and where pugnacity was required, 
whether in word or action, William Harris was equal to the 
occasion. 

He was not always responsible for such occurrences. The 
language used by Gregory Dexter and his party was much more 
irritating. But Harris never declined his share in a controversy 
when it arose. On this day, Williams had the opportunity of 
learning the opinions of his neighbors by hearing a discussion 
of his own conduct by such disputants as Harris and Richard 
Scott, and of taking the vote upon a resolution which was 
equally a censure upon himself, upon his own party and upon 
their adversaries. That this particular brawl had begun early 
and lasted long may be learned from an entry upon the same 
page. [Early Records, Vol. H., p. 8l] "Whereas Henry Fowler 
was warned to the court to answer for his marriage without 
due publication, and he pleaded that the divisions of the town 
were the cause of his so doing, the town voted a remission of 
his penalty." June 4, 1655. This was a bold and justly suc- 
cessful answer to the townsmen. From want of religious 
congregations, publications of marriages were made in town 
meeting during the greater part of the 17th century. This 
was the first business in the order of the day. They were 
made by the Town Sergeant, whose stentorian voice was 
deemed more fit for the purpose than that of the elderly mod- 
erator. Henry Fowler was a young man of just twenty-one 
years. He had grown up with Mr. ffoote, the ironmaster be- 
fore mentioned, probably as his apprentice, and still lived at 
his house. As he failed to secure a hearing for his publica- 
tion by the sergeant, he and his friends waited no longer. He 
was married without it at Mr. ffoote's house the same even- 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 6l 

ing. His defence in substance was, that the Town Meeting 
was so disturbed by the fathers of the village that even the 
publication of marriages became impossible. If they would 
see the young men respect the law, they should themselves 
first afford an example. The townsmen accepted the reproof 
and remitted the penalty. Williams was justly indignant at 
the conduct of both parties to this affair, at the pusillanimous 
behavior of the moderator and the sergeant in failing to 
enforce silence and make the publication, and at the lawless 
acts of the bridegroom and his friends. This is a specimen 
of the manner in which men had learned to conduct them- 
selves under the voluntary association in Mooshassuc in the 
17th century. This may suffice for an example. Other dis- 
turbances arose during the first century of the town. But 
even when they are mentioned in the letters of Williams, 
they are charitably omitted from the town record. 

Some other discords there were, between Williams and the 
Proprietors, respecting the administration of their estate. 
Williams had desired at the beginning that this should be a 
place of refuge for those "distressed for conscience." The 
offer, if ever expedient, was so no longer. The Presbyterians 
asked for no refuge in the colonies eastward of New York. 
The Puritan had his peculiar abode in New England, where 
he had become a persecutor in his turn. All sober-minded 
people who chose to emigrate were welcomed. But Wil- 
liams did not yield up his fancy that a large reservation 
should be provided for those of other countries who were in 
distress of conscience. How a proper discrimination could 
be made among the applicants, does not appear. Emigrants 
for conscience's sake, were, in that generation, more extreme 
and often more turbulent and pugnacious than they are at 
present. Many could not distinguish between their consciences 
and their passions. Those who were most likely to come in 
large numbers, were precisely those whom foreign govern- 
ments would be least desirous to retain at home. Some had 
been soldiers, many blended religious notions with those of 
anarchy and sedition in a fashion now gone by. The "fami- 
lists " or "family of love,"* enjoyed in their day a reputation 

*In the "Dictionary of National Biography" (MacMillan), may be 



62 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

not unlike that of the emigrants to Utah in recent years. The 
" fifth Monarchy men," were of very various characters and 
conditions, for Sir Henry Vane has been reckoned among 
them. They were not so much an organized sect, as holders 
of an opinion widely diffused and liable to become dangerous 
in times when old institutions were breaking up and no one 
knew what was coming in their place. The conception of 
government among the men of the fifth monarchy, was a 
perversion of the biblical vision in the Book of Daniel. After 
the rise and fall of the four great monarchies, Babylonian, As- 
syrian, Macedonian and Roman, was to come the kingdom of 
the Messiah. How was this kingdom to be set up and by whom ? 
It was not clear to all men that the Roman empire was even 
then at an end, and what means were to be employed to in- 
augurate its successor .-• This party had two wings, one ready 
to employ physical force for bringing in the kingdom, the 
other seeking to attain their end by peaceful and legitimate 
means. Of the first description was Harrison, the Parliamen- 
tary General, who was willing to resort to the " holy text of 
pike and gun," for setting up the kingdom of Christ in Eng- 
land. But he stood in too great awe of Oliver Cromwell to 
make the attempt. Europe had not long before emerged from 
a religious war of thirty years. It seemed to many that every 
object, religious or political, could be obtained by military 
force. There was fighting everywhere and all sorts of fanat- 
ics dreamed of accomplishing their purposes by armed insur- 
rection. Their conception of religious liberty was vastly 
unlike that of Williams. If by any chance they could have 
gained a foothold here his institutions would have vanished 
away like shadows. In England a multitude of dazed fanatics, 
military and others, were ready to join in an uprising which 
would have ended as such enterprises generally do. They 
made no general insurrection, but were so strong and restless 
as to give uneasiness to the Puritan governments, so long as 
there were any. In such a condition of affairs, it would have 
been a proceeding of very doubtful wisdom to offer an invita- 
tion to a multitude in England who thought themselves " dis- 

found an account of Henry Nichlaes or Nicholas, the founder of the 
"Familists" or " Family of Love," which will give all the information 
which is necessary. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 63 

tressed for conscience," but who had really little toleration 
for any opinions but their own, and who would have been far 
more formidable antagonists to the social order of Rhode Isl- 
and than Gorton. If intelligence had reached London that a 
large reserve had been set apart in Rhode Island for persons 
who had suffered from State arrests or prosecutions, and that 
a sure refuge and maintenance were awaiting them there, — 
exaggerated as these tales would have been in the transmis- 
sion, — there would have been danger of a large emigration 
of anarchists as undesirable as those of our own day. They 
could come in such numbers that a small and weak colony 
could neither control nor expel them ; and its institutions if 
assailed by the fifth-monarchy men, would, in no long time, 
have been superseded by those of the Massachusetts or Crom- 
wellian pattern. These were the most numerous and most 
formidable of the fanatical sects of the period. There were 
others equally ready to gain their ends by force. Men who 
lived in a steadfast faith in an approaching conflagration of 
the world, would not have been scared by such trifles as a 
mere confiscation of property. This danger was not merely 
imaginary in that generation. The Proprietors would never 
assent to Williams's proposal of a large reservation for the 
benefit of "persons distressed for conscience." It was neces- 
sary to be assured by their own examination, what consciences 
they had, and that there were not too many of them. The 
Town Meeting would never allow Williams or Clarke to pub- 
lish any such invitation in England. Among Williams's let- 
ters of this period is one of unknown date, in which he 
complains that a tract which he desired to be reserved as a 
refuge for the persecuted was about to be sold by the Pro- 
prietors. Harris and Olney knew something about their own 
generation in England. They refused to aid a project like 
this or even to let its existence be known. It is difficult to 
condemn their judgment. The Proprietors were sustained by 
the freeholders, and the scheme came to an end.* The Pro- 
prietors, however, did make some reservation from their es- 
tate, but with views wholly secular, for the relief of the 

*Thus another of Williams's chief designs in the Plantations at Moos- 
hassuck proved a failure, being defeated by his grantees. 



64 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

townsmen and especially of the less wealthy citizens. It was 
designed to afford them some provisions of fire-wood and 
other domestic supplies, and to allay discontents, to which 
the Proprietors were not insensible. The only persons to be 
benefited were the residents of the town, and their bodies 
only, and not their consciences, were to be regarded. Thus, on 
the 7th of February, 1658, an order was made in the Town Meet- 
ing for certain lands on the Wonasquatucket to be in perpet- 
ual common. It was not then carried into effect, "for," says 
Thomas Olney, " which said order by reason of damage which 
our Town records sustained in the late Indian War hath mis- 
carried." It appears, however, from some extracts yet remain- 
ing from the Proprietors' records, that, in 1658, a large tract 
of land, containing a thousand acres or more, was " stated per- 
petually to lie in common." It "embraced a considerable part 
of what is now North Providence and terminated with the hill 
north of the Cove and Great Point." This order was lost or 
miscarried in the Indian wars. But the Proprietors' meeting 
on the second day of December, 1685, " in view of the neces- 
sity of some lands perpetually to be and lie in common, near 
unto our town for the use and benefit of the inhabitants," 
. " enacted and ordered that all the tract mentioned 
afore, which was then in common, should forever remain and 
be in common, and that all parts of said tract which were 
then taken up, by any person, which should at any time 
thereafter be laid down to common, should continually so 
remain, which order was declared irreversible without the 
full and unanimous consent of the tvhole number of the pur- 
chasers." This last was a very common formula, easily dis- 
regarded. The reservation was wholly secular in its purposes. 
It remained entire until the 13th of March, 1724. We shall 
see what then became of it. (See Town Meeting Records, 
1823, Book 9, pp. 279-80. A report of a committee drawn up 
by the late Judge Staples.)* 

*There was now some movement towards the most promising fields in 
the valley of the Blackstone, but its river was too large for the men of 
that day. They could not use or control its immense power, and with 
their humble capital they did not need it, and could not improve it. Their 
sawmills and gristmills were better served by the narrower streams in the 
western part of their territory, and towards them was the first movement 
of emigration. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 65 

With all its discouragements the town was slowly increas- 
ing, and its population was moving in every direction into the 
proprietary lands. Chad Brown and others had made pur- 
chases of lands beyond the western boundary of Williams's 
Indian deed ; and had purchased from the native occupants 
their growing crops and whatever else they claimed. (See 
Williams's first letter to John Whipple, II. Bartlett's Colonial 
Records, p. 293.)* Some of these had established their home- 
steads outside of Williams's purchase and had obtained a 
title from the Proprietors. As many other colonists had done, 
they confounded property with jurisdiction and continued to 
vote in the Providence Town Meetings, although they did not 
reside within the boundaries of Williams's purchase. They 
were allowed or encouraged to do so by the Proprietors. In 
this they were not inconsistent, for they claimed that the 
whole country west of them was theirs in fee simple, under 
the second " memorandum " in the Sachem's "deed," — "up 
streams" — the streams of Pautuckqut and Pawtuxet "with- 
out limits we might have for the use of cattle." The Propri- 
etors were glad of any accession to the number of those who 
settled in the uninhabited territory, who gave some value to 
their unsold lands and became supporters of their proprie- 
tary title. The Proprietors had always claimed that the words 
of the "memorandum" vested in them not a mere right of 
pasturage but a corporeal estate, a fee simple in the soil itself. 
So long as the population was very small the question excited 
little interest. The small freeholders who supported the 
opinions of Williams, had taken it for granted that the soil 
west of the Indian boundary still belonged to the Narragan- 
setts, and that a new purchase from them would vest the 
whole property in the Town (not in the Proprietors), up to 
the Connecticut line. They were astonished and indignant 
at the claim of the Proprietors, that it was their own already, 
and that the inequality of estates and conditions was to know 
no end. They denied that the settlers on the west side of 
the Indian line were residents of the Town of Providence, 
or possessed any right to vote. The constituency of the 
town was thus drawn in question and a new and yet more 
heated controversy began. Harris and Olney resolutely con- 

*See Williams's letters to Winthrop, p. 330, Narr. Club's ed. 



66 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

tended that they had acquired the whole territory through 
the " Initial Deed " from Williams. A new disputant now 
takes a prominent part in the debate.* Gregory Dexter had 
received a home lot in 1637, and had signed the first compact 
in 1640. He was one of Williams's successors in his religious 
society. He was addicted to warmth, if not to violence of 
language, and had sufficient indiscretion to ruin any party 
which he undertook to lead. In a temporary defeat and un- 
popularity of the Proprietors, he had become town clerk, 
holding the most important and influential office in the town. 
During Williams's absence in England, Dexter, by his fluency 
and readiness in public address, became the chief of the party 
of the freeholders, and the controversy lost nothing in vigor 
and virulence. It had now lasted fifteen years. It seemed 
that something should be done for its adjustment, and Dex- 
ter felt himself called to do it. As town clerk, Dexter had 
possession of the town book, and could insert in it such doc- 
uments as he thought proper for public information, whether 
or not they had been adopted by the town. He seems to have 
imagined that he could bring on or force a settlement of this 
irritating dispute, and drafted his offensive propositions in 
appropriately offensive language. They are not the resolu- 
tions of a Town Meeting or in any manner official, but were 
for general circulation and for permanence as a political plat- 
form or manifesto. 

(See Williams's second letter to John Whipple, Rider's 
Hist. Tract No. 14.) The " Sovereign Plaister" was undoubt- 
edly the composition of Dexter. He alone of his party could 
venture on a Latin quotation It expresses the opinion of 
Williams and of those who sympathized with him. He de- 
clares his approval of its propositions, but is carefully silent 
as to the language in which they are expressed.! 

"27th 2d mo. 1653. So Gregory Dexter wrote its Salus 
Populi Siiprcma lex. An instrument, or Sovereign Plaister, to 

*As a printer,' in London, Gregory Dexter had been brought into con- 
nexion with religious disputants at a time when their strifes were espe- 
cially virulent. He was not well fitted for the work of a peacemaker in a 
distracted colony. 

fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. IL, p. 72. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 67 

heal the manifested present sores in this town or Plantation 
of Providence, which do arise about lands, and to prevent the 
further spreading of them, both amongst ourselves, and the 
whole colony, necessary forthwith to be improved and ap- 
plied, lest this town should fall into grevious sores or gan- 
grenes to the hurt of the whole colony, and thereby, this 
town, which was the first in this Bay, become the worst, and 
that only about land in the wilderness. Per Gregory Dex- 
ter (then Recorder)." 

After this harsh and irritating introduction of a proposal 
of peace. Dexter proceeds to give his opinion touching the 
conduct and claims of the Proprietors. 

"Whereas, it doth manifestly appear that all the acts, or- 
ders and records which are written in the Town Book are 
called the Town acts, orders and records, and therefore law- 
ful, binding, &c., of what nature and condition soever they be, 
whether just or unjust, healthful or hurtful, to the body; 
and, 

"Whereas, we upon serious consideration, being the major 
part of the town aforesaid, finding several acts, orders and rec- 
ords acted in the town's name, to be of thi§ nature and con- 
dition, viz. : so destructive to the common benefit and peace 
of this town, and being so unreasonable, dishonest and unlaw- 
ful that we cannot according to the rules of common prudence 
and humanity, but declare against them. ist. That act to 
divide to the men of Pawtuxet 20 miles is hereby declared 
against as unjust and unreasonable, not being healthful but 
hurtful to the body."* 

Upon their construction of the "Initial Deed," the Paw- 
tuxet lands were, in the estimate of the freeholders, as ex- 
pressed by Dexter, so much taken from the general " town 
stock " or fund and given exclusively to a small body of Pro- 
prietors. This (No. i), if it means anything, is a suggestion 
of a confiscation or resumption of the Pawtuxet purchase. 

"2d. W^hereas, great and manifold troubles hath befallen 

both to ourselves and the whole colony by reason of that 

phrase ' up streams without limit we might have for the use 

of our cattle ; ' for preventing of future contention, we de- 

*Dexter forgot that his friend Williams was a party to it. 



68 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

clare that the bounds are limited in our town evidence, and 
by us stated about twenty years since, and known to be the 
river and fields of Pawtucket, Sugar loaf hill, Bewitt's brow. 
Observation Rock, Absolute Swamp, Orfoord's and Hipsie's 
rock ; and the men who were appointed to set it, were Chad 
Brown, Hugh Bewitt, Gregory Dexter, Wm. Wickenden, and 
furthermore determine that our [ construction ] (original 
writing obscure) of the Deed, and also that privilege for the 
use of cattle [from time] to time declared to us, so it shall be 
recorded and no otherwise, and no other privilege by virtue 
of the said phrase, to be challenged by this town, viz. : that if 
the cattle went beyond the bounds prefixed in the said deed 
granted to him, the owners of the cattle should be no tres- 
passers, the cattle going so far in one day to feed as they 
might come home at night.* 

"3d. And whereas, some of us have desired of the colony 
leave to purchase for this town some enlargement, which was 
granted, and by the great diligence of our neighbour Wil- 
liams with the natives more land is bought adjoining to the 
said bounds, and the purchasers have met and agreed about the 
equal dividing of them, as appeareth by their three conclusions ; 
first, that all men that have paid equal share shall have equal 
in this division of 50 acres to each purchaser, whether they 
be twenty-five acre men or other, even so we agree it shall be, 
any former agreements or acts to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing, and furthermore that all the other acts and agreements 
made and concluded upon by the purchasers in their several 
meetings touching these lands, betwixt the said old bounds 
and the seven mile line, is hereby declared by us, so that it 
shall be, in all respects, all former or later act or acts, agree- 
ment or agreements, thing or things done. Record or Rec- 
ords to the contrary notwithstanding. 

"4th. That no disposal of lands, or recording of lands or 
changing of lands shall be accounted this Town's acts, unless 
the number of 21 of the Purchasers appears and that, only 
respecting these lands within the said old bounds Townivards, 
any former act to the contrary notwithstanding." 

*Dexter and his followers did not or would not see that this proposal 
(No. 2) would have opened the territory to settlers and purchasers from 
Massachusetts, as well as from among themselves. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 69 

By this conciliatory proposal it seems that the small free- 
holders desired to narrow the proprietary purchase to Wil- 
liams's original bounds, and to make a new purchase beyond 
it, in which all classes. Proprietors, &c., twenty-five acre men 
and freeholders should come in on equal terms — rich and 
poor alike.* 

There is a singular inconsistency in the dates mentioned 
in this document. In Dexter's third proposition, he refers to 
the "seven mile line." This line was not established until 
May 14, i66o,f while the " Sovereign Plaister," was presented 
April 27, 1653. The "Sovereign Plaister" is undoubtedly 
genuine and of this year, for it is referred to by Williams in 
his letter to the Town, a few weeks later, in the same year. 
I can only conjecture that in its original form, it was even 
more restrictive of the proprietary claim, and that when Dex- 
ter and his party learned that it could never be carried 
through the Town Meeting or the Legislature, it was thought 
necessary some years later to modify it and to offer a com- 
promise which extended the rights of the Proprietors as far 
west as the seven mile line, and that the paper copied into 
the Town Book was altered accordingly. This was not an 
alteration of a public record, for it had as yet no authority 
from the Town Meeting. The document as we have it seems 
to be a revised version of the original. (See Williams's sec- 
ond letter to Whipple.) 

During the absence of Williams in England, Dexter had 
acquired or assumed the leadership of the popular party in 
Providence. In the heat of political excitement, he had be- 
come more extreme in his opinions and more violent in his 
language. The " Sovereign Plaister " alone remains, by which 
we can estimate the sobriety of his judgment, and the re- 
sults of his success. Soon after this paper was put in circu- 
lation, Williams arrived in Providence. He was the bearer of 
Sir Henry Vane's letter, which probably increased the ex- 
citement already existing. He could not have been long in 
Mooshassuc without hearing of the "Sovereign Plaister" and 

*This (No. 4) would have made sales and transfers by the Proprietors 
much more difficult, some times impossible. 
fEarly Records, Vol. II., p. 129. 



70 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

its irritating effects. He saw the blundering of Dexter and 
his party in using language of so harsh a character in a mat- 
ter which affected the titles and homesteads of so many of 
the foremost townsmen. [In later years Williams was careful 
to restrain his approval to the "proposals" of Dexter, saying 
nothing about their language.] Letter to John Whipple. Ri- 
der's Hist. Tract No. 14, p. 37. " What matter of force was 
there in Mr. Dexter's* three proposals for peace and accom- 
modation .'' Were they not honest, equal and peaceable to 
any that minded not their own cabins more than the common 
good of our poor tossed Barke St vessell.?" Williams had am- 
ple opportunity to observe the temper of his fellow-townsmen 
as this new documeut circulated among them. (p. 37.) "Our 
peace was like y*= peace of a man which hath a tertian ague. 
Every other day yea sometimes every meeting we were all on 
fire, and had a terrible burning fit, ready to come to blows, 
about our lines, about our lands, and y^ twenty-five acre men 
& purchasers, as yo'^selves have confessed, &c." Williams 
saw the injury which Dexter had done to the cause of the 
freeholders, by his indiscreet zeal in their behalf. In his let- 
ter to the Town soon afterwards, he expressed himself as 
ready to abandon the claims which had been made ; but the 
author of them did not yield, and Williams to the close of his 
life was not satisfied of their injustice. (See second letter to 
Whipple, in Rider's Tract No. 14, p. 37.) The controversy 
went on as did the brawls in the Town Meeting. If we were 
to conjecture when the "tumults and heats" of these assem- 
blies reached their height, we may believe that it was upon 
the very day when the "Sovereign Plaister" was spread be- 
tween the shoulders of the body politic.f 

Notes upon the "Sovereign Plaister." First. The extension 
of the Pawtuxet lands to the twenty mile line (afterwards 
the Connecticut border) did not affect any right of Provi- 
dence men, according to Dexter and Williams's own theory ; 

*It seems by this, that Dexter's proposals were originally but three, 
and that the fourth was added at a later day. 

tThere is nothing in the "Sovereign Plaister," except its rancour, which 
would not be regarded as unconstitutional in a party platform of the 
present day. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 7 1 

according to them, the land was open to purchasers. The 
Pawtuxet men had availed themselves of the opportunity in 
buying the land belonging to the Indians on the west of Wil- 
liams's Indian line. This act of the Pawtuxet men saved the 
land to the colony. Dexter hints at resumption, and Wil- 
liams says (letter to Whipple), " that some in the Town 
Street [talked about revoking the Pawtuxet purchase, and 
some said that the 25 acre men had paid an equal peny & 
therefore should have an equal purchase." Dexter seems to 
have forgotten, if he had ever known, the legal maxim, ''fieri 
non debet, factum valet,'' or that a public grant once com- 
pletely vested in possession should ever afterwards be main- 
tained. He did not know that a grant of fifteen years' 
standing could not be revoked without a shock to all rights 
of property, which would have been most injurious to the 
honor and credit of the colony, and perhaps have led to another 
secession more disastrous to it than that of Coddington. 
Second. "Up streams without limits," &c. This was an at- 
tempt to force the Town Meeting to decide a matter of 
judicial cognizance only, and to force a re-sale of lands which 
the Proprietors had already sold. With their lands the set- 
tlers west of Williams's Indian line would have lost their 
rights to vote without a re-purchase. There was something 
to irritate everybody. The Proprietors were sufficiently in- 
dignant already. The "twenty-five acre men," little as they 
or their boys may have regarded the restrictions upon their 
rights of common, yet stood by the Proprietors whenever 
their title was drawn in question. They justly regarded their 
own expectations of property west of the seven mile line, 
under the Proprietors' deeds, as worth more than any thing 
which Dexter could promise them of gains at the Proprietors' 
expense. They gave no support to Dexter or to Williams. 
The small freeholders who caused most of the trouble,* had, 
as Harris says, come in at a later day, and purchased small 
holdings. They were now clamorous, although they had no 

*The Town Meeting could not be persuaded to adopt the " Sovereign 
Plaister," in its original form. It was not until June 3, 1667, that the 
Town Meeting " Voted & ordered it to be recorded in the Records of the 
Town ;" with the alterations which subsequent events had made necessary, 
it was so recorded. 



72 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

legal claims, having bought their land with all its encum- 
brances upon it, and having borne none of the burdens of the 
first planters. The most prominent citizens, as Chad Brown, 
Wickenden, Abbott, had made no complaints and had not en- 
deavored to repudiate their bargain. The members of Wil- 
liams's former religious society must have been scandalized 
by the injurious reflections cast by Dexter upon his fellow- 
member, Thomas Olney. Some of the Proprietors were also 
of the society, and a new emotion must have been awakened 
among them by an agitation equally offensive to their piety 
and their interests. It may explain what is obscure, through 
the loss of their early records, that not long afterwards, Greg- 
ory Dexter ceased to be an elder, and that Thomas Olney, 
whom he had publicly charged with dishonesty was chosen 
in his stead.* Although no practical result came of these 
contests, yet there was something to excite alarm. There 
was no check upon confiscation in those days. There had 
been enough of it in England. There might be here, as ap- 
pears by Verin's case. The loss of his homestead and invest- 
ments was threatened, solely by reason of his non-residence. 
When Olney, Harris and John ffield were forced to unite in 
order to avert the danger with which Dexter threatened the 
security of property, it could not be foreseen whose estate 
might be wrested from him by the Town Meeting.f The 
Proprietors, however, irritated by the " Sovereign Plaister," 
retained their self-control and made no reply or protest. They 
changed none of their methods. There was not much de- 
mand for farms or homesteads (See Harris's letter, MS.), 
but such as there was, the Proprietors were ready to supply 
it, as if nothing had happened. They went on with their 
sales and no one hesitated to accept them. Their calm 
indifference was probably more irritating to Dexter and Wil- 
liams than any number of resolutions or tracts. However 
impassive in appearance, they did not forget insults, and 
nourished their wrath until the time came for its exhibition, 

*Benedict's History of American Baptists, Vol. I., p. 478. 

tSee Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 105. "The Proprietors 
were in the minority on that day, for Arthur Fenner, the leader of the 
freeholders, was chosen moderator." 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 73 

May, 1657. Williams's next encounter with William Har- 
ris was one of his own seeking, and was one of the most 
unfortunate passages of his life. It displayed a vindictive- 
ness, which, notwithstanding his occasional warmth of lan- 
guage, was not usual with him. In May, 1657, while president 
of the colony, he appeared at the General Court of Commis- 
sioners, which was also the highest judicial tribunal, with an 
impeachment against Harris for high treason against Oliver 
Cromwell. It was subscribed only "Roger Williams, Presi- 
dent." He then became the prosecutor as well as the presid- 
ing judge. The attorney general (the general attorney as they 
then called him) did not appear in support of the accusation, 
nor any one as prosecutor or witness. It was the work of 
Williams alone, and is an example of his manner of acting 
without foresight and without consultation or advice. All 
that is now known of this "impeachment," is contained in a 
MS. letter from Harris to Captain Dean, of London, of Nov. 
14, 1666. Harris says that it contained observations like 
these : "There had been twenty English gentlemen executed 
at Tyburn that had not done so much as William Harris had 
done." He "also shows in his said indictment, what dismem- 
bering and disembowelling there should be in such cases." 
Harris also complains of Williams's perversion and falsifying 
of his words. He says that "Williams sent a copy of his 
charges to Sir Henry Vane, who charitably said he thought 
he was beside himself, and that he did willingly mistake me> 
saying I was against all governments. It appears that, far 
before he indicted me for high treason, he indicted me first 
for contempt of all governments ; and it being demanded 
whether 'guilty or not guilty,' I answered, 'not guilty.' 
And the verdict of the jury was 'not guilty.' Yet afterwards 
he indicted me upon his former ground, for high treason, as 
being against all government, which falsely he said, in the 
judgment of the jury. His difference and mine grew by rea- 
son of some simple, harmless people that will not defend 
themselves, but suffer all things ; and will not fight, nor 
swear, nor take an engagement to any governor or govern- 
ments, for which cause, Mr. Williams would have sent them 
to England, for which cause he indicted them ; therefore I 



74 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

wrote to him telling him of his former large professions of 
liberty of conscience, &c. Whereupon his great wrath and 
wickedness came forth, and yet remain." 

Harris was evidently alarmed. This is apparent from his 
own letters, and from his last will. In this he used all the 
skill of the conveyancer to put his ample estate in strict 
settlement ; avowing his purpose that it should be free from 
any further danger of forfeiture or confiscation. Harris had 
good reason for anxiety, for no one could foresee the decision 
of unlearned judges, swayed by the passions of the people 
who elected them. It might, however, be safely predicted, 
that they would take care of themselves, as in fact they did. 
Impeachment was a popular remedy in that age for chronic 
political disorders, and Williams thought that it would have 
a salutary effect in Mooshassuc, by ridding him of his chief 
political opponent. The court was embarrassed. If reports 
should reach England, exaggerated as they would be, that 
Rhode Island was merely a nest of traitors, the story would 
be turned to account by the neighbor colonies, as a sufficient 
reason for a revocation of the charter, and a partition of the 
territory, followed by an establishment of the Massachusetts 
regime. The judges felt that it was necessary to do, or at 
least to say, something, and speedily adjourned the matter for 
a full hearing at its session in July, at Warwick. They ordered 
Harris to appear there, and "doe require the General Attorney 
to take notice of the case, and to take out a Summons, to re- 
quire Mr. Roger Williams there to appeare and to make out 
his charge face to face." Under this grave accusation, Harris 
was subjected to no restraint, but was only required to give 
security for his appearance. The general attorney did "take 
notice of the case," by carefully avoiding it altogether. It 
seems that Harris had written a "booke" or tract, which was 
never printed, but which had only been circulated in MS. and 
which is not known to be now extant. We have no informa- 
tion of the places or the extent of its publication, or of the 
effect which it produced. 

At the July session, at Warwick, Harris appeared. He was 
a bold man and never hesitated to avow any thing which he 
had done or written. It was ordered by the court that he 
should "reade his booke," and Mr. Williams shall "view the 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 75 

original." Probably he accompanied his reading by comments 
in his sharp and rasping manner. There was no other evi- 
dence, and he was called upon for no farther defence. The 
prudent general attorney "took notice of the case" and was 
detained by urgent private business, from both sessions of 
the court at which this affair was pending, — a thing never 
before or since heard of at the Rhode Island bar. He had 
too clear a view of the evil to come to the Cromwellian gov- 
ernment. What if some turn of fortune should bring the 
" Kingsmen" once more into power .? What would then be- 
come of the political fortunes of the office holders in Rhode 
Island ? He kept carefully aloof and the court appointed a 
substitute. The case was conducted by Williams, although 
he was president or governor at the time. Williams averred 
that Harris had maintained "that he who can say, it is my 
conscience, ought not to yield subjection to any human order 
among men." This seems to have been Williams's inference 
from Harris's "booke." As Cromwell's rule seemed then to 
be the only possible one, whoever denied that denied all hu- 
man government whatever. Williams imputed to Harris the 
inferences which he himself drew from the pamphlet. This 
was the very injustice of which he himself had complained 
when it was committed by the elders of Massachusetts. The 
court was ill at ease. The judges saw the expediency of quiet- 
ing the whole affair and referred the "booke" to two of their 
own number, with instructions to report upon it by four 
o'clock the same afternoon. The committee accomplished 
their task and the court delivered their judgment with toler- 
able expedition for the heat of a July day. (See Vol. I., Bart- 
lett's R. I. Col. Records, p. 364.) "Concerning W. Harris, his 
booke and speeches upon it, we find therein delivered as for 
doctrines having much bowed the Scriptures, to maintain 
that he who can say, 'it is my conscience,' ought not to yield 
subjection to any human order amongst men. Whereas the 
said Harris hath been charged for the sayd booke & wordes, 
with high treason, and inasmuch as we being so remote from 
England, cannot be so well acquainted with the laws thereof, 
in that behalfe provided, as the State now stands, though we 
cannot but consider his behaviour therein to be both con- 



76 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

temptuous & seditious, we thought best thereupon to send 
over his writings with the charges & his reply, to Mr. John 
Clarke, desiring him to commend the matter, in our Common- 
wealth's behalf, for farther judgment as he shall see the cause 
requires, and in the mean time, bind the said Harris in good 
bonds, to the good behaviour, until therein, sentence be 
given." By this trimming decision, the court decide nothing ; 
but the judges are careful to offend neither party, Kingsmen 
or Cromwellians. They cast the whole responsibility upon 
John Clarke. He was a man of sense, and he " saw cause to 
do nothing." Probably these documents never left his hands. 
Antiquarian research in English archives has not discovered 
them. The loss of William Harris's "booke" has deprived us 
of much information respecting the limits of free discussion 
considered permissible by the founder of the State. By these 
indiscreet proceedings, taken upon his own responsibility 
without consultation with others, Williams had endangered 
the colony, and he was the chief sufferer. He was not re- 
elected as president of the colony the next year, nor ever 
again. In later days, when Charles H. had been quietly re- 
stored, and the people of Rhode Island were in the enjoy- 
ment of a charter more liberal than any which a Puritan 
government would ever give, Williams was the subject of 
much acrimonious remark, and he does not seem very suc- 
cessful in explaining away his share in this transaction. The 
freeholders, whose advocate he was, lost through his indis- 
cretion the support of the Foxians ( mostly Kingsmen), dur- 
ing their long control of the government. The prosecution of 
Harris, Williams would gladly have forgotten ; but the Qua- 
kers, in whom there was as much of the " Old Adam " as in 
most other people, were never weary of reminding him of it.* 
Inferences very different from those of Williams's were 

*The Quakers had good reason to be interested in his case, for 
the doctrines imputed to Harris, were not unlike those held by many or 
most of themselves. Harris intimates that if it had been in his power 
Williams would have banished them from Rhode Island. They were still 
but few and weak, but when a few years later, their day of power came, 
they remembered the friendship of Harris, and carried him and his party 
of Proprietors safely through all their difficulties. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 77 

drawn by the Quaker readers of William Harris's "booke." 
(See New England's Firebrand Quenched.) These asserted 
that he had only maintained that the Parliament without the 
king had no claim upon their allegiance. If this were a cor- 
rect representation, Harris had anticipated by an hundred 
years one of the chief doctrines of the American Revolution. 
Harris was a "Kingsman," as were most of the Quakers. 
They smypathized with Harris, who had the wisdom to culti- 
vate their friendship, and who had their support in future 
controversies with Williams. The warrant against Harris 
shows that the chief motive for the prosecution was, his being 
a "Kingsman," as were Coddington, Gorton and most others 
of that day, who saw in Cromwell only the supporter of Massa- 
chusetts and her principles. (See Fox's New England's Fire- 
brand Quenched, p. 282 ; Vol. I. Bartlett's R. I. Col. Records, 
p. 361.) 

It is impossible to believe that Harris (See Arnold's Hist, 
of R. I., Vol. I., pp. 362, 363) cherished designs subversive of 
property and magistracy. His private estate was the largest 
in Providence, and he was ever seeking to add to its value. 
In his public acts he was always a supporter of law and 
organization. The charge of turbulence and anarchy is incon- 
sistent with the whole tenor of his life. The ingeniously 
ambiguous statement of the court concerning what might be 
deemed treason in England, may be deemed a censure of the 
military oligarchy which then bore rule, and which made any 
thing treason at its will. Their declaration might be useful to 
the judges if the time should come when the times should 
change in favor of the Kingsmen. The General Court of 
Trials was not swayed by the passions of the "towne streete." 
They needed to be on good terms with Cromwell while his 
day lasted, but like many others they saw that it was drawing 
to an end and they bade him farewell without regret. [He 
died 1658.] 

If there were any sense of humor among the spectators of 
the proceedings against Harris it must have been a grotesque 
exhibition when the chief court of a community which toler- 
ated greater latitude of opinion than any other in the world, 
engaged in trying one of the chief citizens for high treason 
in "bowing the Scriptures." 



78 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

(Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 112; p. 121.) In 
1658, the Proprietors had learned that they had nothing to 
fear from the small landholders. At the town meeting, May 
15th, Mr. Olney (one of the chief Proprietors) being modera- 
tor, it was "ordered that all those that enjoy lands in \.\).& juris- 
diction [not merely within the bounds] of this town are free- 
men." This confirmed the right of suffrage to those who had 
made purchases beyond Williams's Indian line, and indirectly 
overruled and rejected one of the most important claims in 
Dexter's "Sovereign Plaister." The Proprietors let the small 
purchasers understand that they stood in no awe of them. 
October 27, 1659. "For as much as there hath been a com- 
plaint this day, by some of the inhabitants against John 
Clawson, for making use of the common* (he was a "twenty- 
five acre man"), it is therefore ordered by this present court 
that the Deputies or Deputy of the Town, shall forthwith 
forewarn the said John Clawson to forbear in any wise to 
make use of any of the common." (Early Records of Provi- 
dence, p. 126.) This was an exercise of discipline without 
law, over one of the less wealthy freemen. It was both sum- 
mary and severe. If it were enforced, Clawson and his house- 
hold would have been deprived of his fuel and fencing mate- 
rial and of many household supplies. At a later day, when the 
town offered bounties for the heads of wolves and foxes, the 
small freeholders and their boys, who knew the haunts of wild 
animals, were thus officially invited into the Proprietors' 
woodlands. Once admitted they were not easily dislodged 
and remained there for their own purposes and during their 
own pleasure. Swine and goats were still turned upon the 
common to get their living in their own way. As times went 
on the evil did not decrease and we shall see farther unavail- 
ing attempts to abate it. 

The harsh invectives against obnoxious Proprietors now 
so frequent in the Town Meetings and at the Town Mill, 

*In many English manors there was a custom that a commoner who 
had put more cattle on the common than his right proportion, might be de- 
barred from commoning for a limited time, and should pay a reasonable 
fine. But Clawson was a freeholder and a tenant in common, and Provi- 
dence was not a manor, and had no commoners in the EngHsh sense of 
the word. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 79 

Stirred up the passions of those who were dissatisfied with 
the land titles. These were wont to show their anger by- 
means wholly unjustifiable. 

(Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. in.) Providence, 
27th of the 2d month, 1658. "It is ordered that if any per- 
son or persons shall from this time forward, be so bold and 
hardy as to pluck up or break down any bound stake, or cut 
down any tree which is the bounds of any man's lands or 
between neighbour and neighbour, the said party so offend- 
ing being complained of to the Town Deputies, or convicted 
by two witnesses, shall pay or forfeit to this Towne, the sum 
of twenty shillings for every stake, stone, tree or bound, and 
the same to be taken away, or distrained of, by the constable 
of the said Towne, by a warrant from any two of the three 
magistrates' hands, or else whoever doth neglect the same, 
either not giving or serving, the Distress of either Deputy, 
General Assistant or Constable, shall pay unto the Towne 
Treasury, the said money aforesaid." 

It seems to have been difficult to enforce this law for the 
protection of the Proprietors' estates. Popular sympathy was 
rather with their opponents. 

During twenty years the Proprietors had urged Williams 
to give them a title more satisfactory or intelligible than the 
''Initial Deed," and he had steadily refused. He had always 
disapproved what he deemed their misuse of his purchase 
from the Indians, and would have no farther dealings with 
the authors of it. With individuals among them, as Chad 
Brown, &c., he had always maintained friendly relations ; but 
towards the society and its leaders his hostility was uniform 
and constant. They now abandoned hope of any aid from 
him, and determined to supply any defects in their title by 
ascending to its source. The Indians had now become 
familiar with English spirits and gew-gaws, and were ready 
to procure them by parting with the lands which they had 
held so tenaciously twenty years before. In 1659, the suc- 
cessors of Canonicus gave deeds of confirmation to the Pro- 
prietors, such as they had long sought in vain. [These deeds 
may be read at large in Vol. I., Bartlett's Col. Records, pp. 
35-38, and in Staples's Annals.] It is only needful to say of 
them, that they confirm the "Initial Deed" in the sense in 



80 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

which the Proprietors had always construed it. They con- 
vey — to a line twenty miles west of Fox's hill — both lands 
and rights of pasture. The grantors were the degenerate 
heirs of Canonicus and Miantonomo, and were ready to listen 
to any proposals from Rhode Island or Massachusetts, as 
their wants or their vices might prompt them. Williams 
always spoke contemptuously of these confirmation deeds, 
but for a reason which stirred up the wrath of Thomas Olney 
and the Town Meeting, and which, if true, would have been 
most injurious to the whole colony. It was that the Indians 
had subjected themselves to Massachusetts, and had no longer 
any tribal lands to convey* (See Williams's letter about 
Wayunkeke to the Town of Providence, and Rider's Tract 
No. 14, p. 32, letter to John Whipple.) 

27th 8th mo., 1660. "The confirmation deeds never re- 
ceived the scrutiny of any royal commissioners or court of 
law. Had they undergone it they might have raised trouble- 
some questions about the right of the sachems to dispose of 
their tribal lands, without the consent of their people. In 
doing this even Canonicus had been cautious and restrained. 
As deeds of conveyance, these deeds do not seem to have 
added greatly to the security of the proprietary title. They 
may have had some effect in preventing farther tampering 
with the Rhode Island Indian by the agents of Massachu- 
setts, and by discouraging the attacks of freeholders of Prov- 
idence who were unable to judge of their validity and who 
thus overestimated their value. When they had served these 
purpose they were quietly laid away in the Proprietors' ar- 
chives and were never heard of more.f 

*In a MS. letter, Harris says that Williams bought the islands of Pru- 
dence, Patience and Hope from Canonicus and Miantonomo, which was 
wholly inconsistent with his subsequent claim, that the sachems had no 
power to sell lands. Coddington in like manner bought Newport. Massa- 
chusetts treated with him, and Miantonomo granted to Benedict Arnold, 
lands south of the Pawtuxet River, before William Arnold had induced 
Pomham and Soconoco to submit to the English. 

tBoth the Proprietors and the twenty-five acre men, in their proportion 
(one-fourth), were assessed for the money paid to the sachems for their 
deeds of confirmation. As they had gained a quarter share in the profits, 
so also they assumed a quarter part of the liabilities of the proprietary 
shares. (See Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 127.) 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 8l 

It seems that a long credit was needed by many Propria. 
tors, as well as emigrants to the Plantations who purchased 
small farms from them. There is recorded in the town-meet- 
ing book (27th of April, 1659) a list of " The names of all 
such as have paid all their purchase money and have quit- 
tances.* During this summer the Proprietors received an 
accession to their number, who brought a larger amount of 
property than was usual at that day. He, during many years, 
aided the Proprietors in their counsels and fought their bat- 
tles in the town meetings with great vigor and steadiness. 
July 27th, 1659.1 "This day, John Whipple Senr. is received 
into this Town 3. purchaser, to have 2i purchase right of land." 
He came from Dorchester, Massachusetts, and brought with 
him the Massachusetts notions of property, and of the need 
of care in its transmission. He soon became prominent in 
the town meetings, and Williams (second letter to Whipple, 
Rider's R. I. Hist. Tract No. 14) regarded him as one of the 
most troublesome of his enemies. He was licensed to keep an 
inn in the days when the holder of the position was one of the 
most important public functionaries. His house, on what is 
now Constitution Hill, was long the chief political centre of 
the town. Town meetings and councils, courts and legisla- 
tures often assembled there. He died May 16, 1685. 

Williams was now ready to abandon Gregory Dexter's im- 
practicable scheme of confiscation, for he had during some 
time meditated a proposal of his own. He had corresponded 
with Governor Winthrop, of Connecticut, in order to enlist his 
sympathy with the project if not to engage him to take some 
share of the lands. The Governor had eV'idently approved of 
the design, and some even hoped that he might be persuaded 
to make his abode in Rhode Island, and to become its chief 
magistrate. He was a learned man of large and liberal mind 
and could have rendered services to the State to which none 
of its citizens was equal. The "Planting of a new towne," 
was now Williams's remedy for the disorders of the old one. 
(Williams's letters, Narr. Club's ed., 27 Oct., 1660.) The 
place chosen was Wayunkeke, a tract in the southern part of 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., pp. 31, 32. 
fEarly Records of Providence, Vol. II.. pp. 117, 140. 



82 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

what was afterwards called Smithfield. Its bounds cannot 
now be identified. The new township was to be purchased 
from the Indians, as if their title was still subsisting, and 
was to contain reserves for persons " distressed for con- 
science." This project would have led to important results 
if it had been practicable. It would have gathered into one 
permanent organization a corporation of all the enemies of 
the Proprietors of Providence ; would have given them two 
representatives in the General Assembly, and as the towns 
were little subject to its control, would have left Wayunkeke 
town meeting virtually at liberty to dispose of the Proprie- 
tors' lands within its limits, at its own pleasure. These con- 
sequences Williams perhaps did not foresee, as he does not 
mention them, but they did not escape the foresight of Har- 
ris and Olney. Williams thus sets forth the scheme in a 
letter to the town, 27th of the 8th month, 1660. (Early Rec- 
ords, Vol. II., p. 134.) [Extract.] — "As to our new planta- 
tion, let us consider if Niswoshakit & Wayunkeke & ye land 
thereabout may not afford a new and comfortable Plantation. 
To this end, I pray you to consider if the inhabitants of 
these parts, with most of the Cowesets & Nipmucks, have 
long since forsaken ye Narragansett Sachems, & subjected 
themselves to Massachusetts." Williams could scarcely hope 
that the Proprietors would consent to a new purchase of the 
land which they had so long regarded as their own. But he 
had now another enemy on whom he had not .counted in for- 
mer quarrels. Newport during two centuries felt little inter- 
est in the town of Providence, or if she ever professed any, 
it was only to oppose whatever the plantation at Mooshassuc 
most desired. Not until the third of the last century had 
passed away would Newport, or any of the southern towns 
under her control, suffer a division of the town of Providence 
which would add to the political influence of the northern 
part of the State Only the colonial assembly could establish 
a new town, and any application in that quarter was hopeless. 
Besides this, the Quakers were now the rising influence in the 
colony, and were soon to govern it according to their own 
pleasure, during many years. No party championed by Wil- 
liams could hope for anything from them. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 83 

The Proprietors saw the danger of the theory that the 
Indians were still the owners of the soil. If they were at lib- 
erty to sell it to a new colony from Providence, they could 
also sell to a new company from Massachusetts, which could 
easily outbid Mooshassuc, and obtain a foothold here from 
which they could not be dispossessed, and from which they 
could be a perpetual menace to Providence.* The Proprietors 
and their leaders were ever alert and vigorous and they lost 
no time. Their views and apprehensions are best stated in 
their own words. This is from the prompt reply of Thomas 
Olney. "October 27 & 29, 1660, ordered & approved by the 
Town Meeting, Quarter Court October 27th, 1660. Ordered 
that upon a writing sent to this Towne by Mr. Roger Wil- 
liams, bearing date the 27th of October, 1660, that Thomas 
Olney Sen"'- William Harris & Arthur Fennerf shall draw up 
a writing in answer unto the said Roger Williams, his writ- 
ing, and it shall be sent unto him from the Town, and shall 
be subscribed by the Town Clerk. , . . The copy 
thereof followeth : 

"Sir We received your letter & it being read in the ears of 
our Towne they considered this answer. That from these 
words in our evidence taken by you, which are these : The 
lands upon Mooshausuck & Wonasquatuckett which land, 
comprehend Musuassacutt Country, are ours already. 

" & when we plant there, we will agree with the Indians 
either to remove or fence. 2 ly Whereas you say the Indians 
have subjected to the Bay, we say they were subject to the 
Nanhegansett Sachems when you bought the Land which 
we now have, and yourself propose yet to buy. And we know 
that if we let go our true hold already attained, we shall (if 

*At this very time the Atherton Company, a Massachusetts corpora- 
tion, was dealing with the Indians in Narragansett for their lands, and 
setting up a pretended mortgage upon their territory from the Narragan- 
sett Sachems. (1659-60 Vol. I. Bartlett's Records, pp. 429-30; 438-39; 
1664, p. 128.) 

fArthur Fenner, who was of the committee to draw up this letter, was 
one of the popular party and usually acted with Roger Williams against 
William Harris. He was fully aware of the danger of recognizing the 
Indian title as still subsisting. (Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., 
P- I34-) 



84 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

not ourselves yet our posterity) smart for it, & we conceive 
herein that we do truly understand what yourself doth not. 
And if your apprehension take place, as we hope it never 
will, in those your proposals, we haply may see what we 
conceive, you desire not, the ruin of what you have given 
name to, (viz.) poor Providence. As for the Natives complain- 
ing, we have not yet wronged them, any farther than satis- 
faction, that we know of, nor shall not, what their wrongs to 
us are, we have hitherto rather smothered than complained. 
Yet we must tell you that we shall not be adverse to any fair 
gratuity, either to take them off their fields or otherwise, 
always having respect to the act of the Sachem, whom you 
have formerly so much honored. And herein if you can ac- 
complish we shall be ready to assist with further pay, upon 
our former groundes, otherwise we shall not meddle, and 
forbid any, so to do. Thus in love though in briefe, returned. 
We rest your neighbours. The Town of Providence. 

Per Me, Tho. Olney Sr. Clarke, in behalf of the Town Oc- 
tober the 27th. To Mr. Roger Williams — These." 

Williams was always occupied with the interests of the 
Indians and regarded the land titles from their point of view. 
He never, it seems, became aware of the danger incurred by 
leaving the property in their hands. He proposed to buy a 
second time the Indian tribal lands and offered nothing to 
the Proprietors, whose rights he did not recognize. He could 
scarcely hope that they would agree for the benefit of other 
and later immigrants, who had always been hostile to them, 
to a new purchase of the lands which they had so long re- 
garded as their own. The Proprietors, with the support of 
the "Quarter-rights men," had now the control of the town 
meeting. They insisted upon their former claim of absolute 
title to the upper waters of their rivers, and would offer 
nothing more than a gratuity to the Indians to induce them 
to remove quietly. The Proprietors were fully, and perhaps 
rightly, persuaded that the maintenance of their own title 
was essential to the safety or even the existence of the town. 
Besides this it was not certain that the new plantation would 
be more peaceful than the old. So many unquiet spirits, if 
they found no subject of dispute with Providence, would read- 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 85 

ily discover causes of quarrel among themselves. The proj- 
ect of a new town found little favor, and this last attempt at 
compromise failed like its predecessors. 

The townsmen were becoming somewhat straightened in 
their resources, and in February, 1658 (see Early Records, 
Vol. III., pp. 21, 22), common was established on all lands 
remaining unsold, on the west side of Mooshassuc River. 
This was but a partial relief, and available to but few. Some- 
thing was attempted in the town meeting in aid of a new 
plantation at Wayunkeke, March 14, 1661-62. (Early Rec- 
ords of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 19, 38.) "A committee was 
appointed to view the lands about Wayunkeke, and to see 
where it will be convenient to place a towne & how the towne 
shall be placed and in what manner, & to bring in their re- 
port." Each of the committee was to have three shillings a 
day for his pains. But a farther examination did not confirm 
Williams's favorable opinion of Wayunkeke and the planta- 
tion of Smithfield was delayed until the early years of the 
last century. 

It was evidently time for the Proprietors to do something 
for the enlargement of the town. Thus far they had only 
stood upon the defensive. There were no signs of prosperity. 
The western boundary of town and colony were still indefi- 
nite. There were no vessels, no fisheries, no market for 
timber. There was little profit in anything. Even with the 
aid of penal laws, such an estate in the wilderness could not 
be maintained. The oversight and police necessary to pro- 
tect the land against depredation were heavy charges upon 
the incomes of those days. The Proprietors could not re- 
strain their own townspeople, much less could they impose 
any check upon their neighbors of Massachusetts, who 
crossed the Blackstone River and felled and carried off their 
choicest cedars. Little redress could be obtained from any 
courts of "the Bay." One quotation may suffice as to plun- 
derers nearer home. March 28, 1664. "Continual complaint 
Cometh to this towne, about the great abuse that is done to 
meadows of men in general, which is certainly known to be 
done by swine rooting the said meadows up," &c. (Vol. III. 
Early Records of Providence, pp. 51, 52, 57, 58.) Then follows 



86 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

another prohibition of swine on the common land, which 
proved as futile as any of its predecessors. By this law of 
the town of March 28, 1664, swine were to be forfeited if 
found going at large upon the common. The law was repealed 
October 27, 1664, " because," as the town records say, "many 
inconveniences are likely to ensue." Probably giving occa- 
sion to breaches of the public peace. When they could endure 
these annoyances no longer, the Proprietors began to look 
about them for some better method of managing an estate 
which was too unwieldly for the force at their command. 
They found it in a new policy, which in later years had an 
important influence upon the history of the town and colony. 
Down to this time the uncertainty of Williams's Indian 
boundary had given inconvenience to private purchasers near 
Neuticonkonitt Hill and elsewhere. These things must be 
set in order before any new arrangement of the Proprietors' 
estate. One of the earliest troubles was with their own 
voters. Even the lists of the freemen were not kept with 
accuracy. "Town Meeting, March 26, in the year 1660." 
(Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 125.) "Thomas 
Olney, sen-^- Moderator . . . Ordered that the clerk 
shall draw up the names of the Purchasers and the names of 
the five & twenty acre men, and to sever their names dis- 
tinctly." A landed oligarchy was already formed. It was of 
the highest importance that no person should find a place in 
the official list of Proprietors who had not a Proprietors' 
right or share. None other was entitled to be inscribed 
there, and the ordinary freeholder was not permitted to vote 
in town meeting upon any question which respected the Pro- 
prietors' estate. So long as this distinction was observed, 
the Proprietors were secure. The severance between the 
names was of importance, both political and social. On May 
14, 1660, Town Meeting (Early Records of Providence, 
Vol. II., p. 129), "It is ordered by the present Assembly, 
that the bounds of this Town of Providence for the first di- 
vision, be set from the hill called ffoxes' hill, seven miles upon 
a West line, & at the end of the West line to go upon a 
straight line. North unto Pawtucket River, and upon a straight 
line South, unto Pawtuxet River & all the lands beyond 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 87 

those bounds prefixed according to our deeds,* to be disposed 
of as this town shall see cause, any former law, or clause 
therein to the contrary notwithstanding." This was the old 
"seven-mile line." It was established in anticipation that a 
new town would some day grow up beyond it, of which it was 
to be the eastern boundary. It is now the dividing line be- 
tween Cranston, Johnston and Smithfield on the east, and 
Glocester, Foster, and Burrillville on the west. With some 
trifling deviation, due to re-surveys, it remains as it was estab- 
lished more than 230 years ago. The Proprietors had become 
aware that they could make nothing of their outlying wil- 
derness in the existing state of emigration. They were 
anxious to disembarrass themselves of these distant wood- 
lands, and to concentrate their attention upon the portion 
called " Providence Towne," which would be the first to rise 
in value. No more of the old proprietary shares were to be 
granted in the new lands, to excite the enmity of twenty-five 
acre men or smaller landholders. The old Proprietors were 
to retain all their former authority in the town street. In 
fact, they gained even more, as no others were to be admit- 
ted. The change of policy was not immediate. Every thing 
moved slowly in those days and especially among an untaught, 
agricultural people. The townsmen were to be accustomed 
by degrees to the new system. Those " Village Hampdens" 
were wont to be somewhat tumultuous in the exhibition of 
their political feelings, and as they increased in numbers the 
Proprietors became more anxious to avoid occasions of offence. 
Not until January 27, 1663, two and one-half years later, was 
it deemed politic to introduce this resolution : "At a Quarter 
Court, It is ordered by this present Assembly, that from this 
day forward, there shall not be any more people accommoda- 
ted with land as Purchasers, within the bounds of this Towne, 
& that this order be not repealed without the full consent of 
the whole number of the Purchasers." (Early Records, Vol. 
III., pp. 48,49) 

The number of Proprietors had now reached one hundred 
and one, at which it ever after remained. The society was 
even now uncomfortably large. Some of its members were 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. II., p. 129. 



88 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

dissentients from the policy of its old leaders, and a new gen- 
eration could not be expected to be more conciliatory. Olney 
and Harris must have explained in some manner how the 
succession of the estate was preserved to those who were 
entitled to the "fellowship of vote," according to Williams's 
Initial Deed ; but I have found no trace of it. With this 
"order" there came to an end another design of Williams, 
that his purchase should be a public trust, to be administered 
by the future citizens. The Proprietors had long before 
formed a permanent society, limited in number, and private 
in its objects. It now was so avowedly. They could act with 
all needful force and unanimity, as their designs could no 
longer be thwarted by new shareholders. Some time passed 
by before they avowed their new policy, and in this instance 
it was needful to provoke no opposition. But the western 
line of the colony must first be established before their par- 
tition of their estate could begin, and an acrimonious contro- 
versy with Connecticut was in the way. Some doubts may 
have been entertained among the Proprietors themselves as 
to their new measures, and they proceeded with their wonted 
deliberation. Their surveys in the wilderness could not be 
prosecuted in winter, and they had the whole future before 
them with little other public business to distract their atten- 
tion. (Very little else of public interest appears on the 
town books of this time.) 

[See Bartlett's Col. Records, Vol. I., p. 417. Providence, 
May, 1659.] The Colonial Assembly had appointed a com- 
mittee of four men to mark out the western bounds of the 
colony and notice was given to Governor Winthrop of Con- 
necticut. Probably nothing had been done as yet under the 
colonial commission, when the town meeting (Early Records, 
Vol. II., p. 127. April and May, 1660)* . . ., "Ordered 
that six men shall be chosen to go next 2d day, come seven 
nights, & set the bounds of our Plantation twenty miles from 
ffoxes' hill, westward, up in the country." This was their 

*Thomas Harris, Sr., was moderator of the April 27th and May 14th 
town meetings. He was of the party of William Harris and Thomas 
Olney. The Proprietors evidently had the control of the meeting for 
their votes of April and May, 1660, effectually destroy the authority of 
the " Sovereign Plaister," if it ever had any. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 89 

only instruction now extant. The town had no authority, 
only the colony could act in a matter of this kind. The 
townsmen probably erected some monuments to give warning 
to the colony and to Connecticut of the extent of their 
claim ; they could do no more. 

So closely were their controversies connected with all pub- 
lic interests that every event brought some new dispute be- 
tween Williams and Harris. Harris had charged Williams 
with inconsistency in approving or supporting the establish- 
ment of the twenty-mile boundary line, as he had always 
maintained that the Plantations had no claim to any territory 
west of the line of the Initial Deed, save a mere right of 
common "up streams without limits," &c. Williams's answer 
was, that he approved the twenty-mile boundary because the 
Indian Sachems of Warwick had conveyed to the English set- 
tlers there lands to an equal distance westward from the War- 
wick shore. This seems a very insufficient reason. It is not 
easy to discover any rights which could be acquired by Provi- 
dence by or under deeds of the Warwick Indians relating to 
another territory. But the controversy was now closed and 
could never more be made a subject of debate. (It was prac- 
tically decided by the colony in appointing a committee to fix 
the boundary line twenty miles to the westward of ffoxes' 
hill.) 

After this resolute assertion by the Proprietors, in the 
name of the town, of their determination to appropriate to 
their own use the whole of Williams's purchase, he could do 
no more. The infirmities of age were beginning to press 
heavily upon him, and he made little attempt to protract a 
controversy which threatened to embitter his latter days. 
The Proprietors had now been during more than twenty years 
in possession of the disputed territory, and an attempt to dis- 
possess them might endanger the peace or even the fran- 
chises of the colony. After a delay, which could not have 
been the pleasantest years of his recollection, he yielded to 
necessity. On the 20th of December, 1661, Williams exe- 
cuted a new deed, but not according to the wishes of his 
grantees. He now, with the concurrence of his wife, con- 
firms his former deed of 1637, for himself and for his heirs, 



90 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

to the original purchasers by name.* Williams's second deed 
had a seal and other formalities and a release of dower. But 
the succession under it was to be in the same society and 
"fellowship of vote" as before. This point he would never 
yield, and it does not appear to have been asked of him. The 
Proprietors already deemed their title strong enough without 
the second deed, and it was scarcely ever mentioned again. 
(Williams's first deed. I. Bartlett, 1638, p. 19. His second 
deed was of 1661, 20th of December. Early Records, Vol. 
HI., p. 7.) 

Having approximately fixed the colony's western border 
and the " seven mile line," which marked the least valuable por- 
tion of the territory, and having effectually prevented any 
increase of their own numbers, the Proprietors went on at 
their leisure to disembarrass themselves as a society of the 
western part of their domains. (Early Records, Vol. HI., pp. 
18, 20.) March 7, 1661. "It is ordered that John Sayles, 
Arthur ffenner, William Wickenden, John Brown, Valentine 
Whitman & Thomas Olney Jun""- shall meet together and 
order about the division of the lands lying without the bounds 
which are prefixed for the town ; how it shall be divided & 
in what manner, & what part every man shall have, and to 
bring in their conclusion unto the town, the next sixth day."f 
The committee were not neglectful of their work, and on the 
next "sixth day" it is ordered that, "all the lands which 
shall be divided, without the seven-mile line shall be di- 
vided by papers, according as it shall fall to every man so to 
stand." A question now arose as to the rights of the 
" twenty-five acre men." They had much in common with 
the Proprietors and their votes had carried the Proprietors 
safely through their controversy with Dexter, Williams and 

*The whole title of the Proprietors had been in strict law only a pos- 
sessory one. It was now sufficiently strengthened by the lapse of twenty 
years, which barred any ejectment suit against them. Williams's second 
deed was needless. The title was now perfect without it. 

f On the same day with an accurate foreboding of the calamities await- 
ing the town, it was voted, " Deeds which concern this town shall be 
enrolled in our Towne Booke, and shall also be conveyed unto the Gen- 
eral Recorder, to be enrolled in the General Records." A singular con- 
fusion of thought, as to the power of town governments to impose duties 
upon colonial officers. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 9 1 

the freeholders, and they were now to receive the first instal- 
ment of their reward. They had been made a separate class 
of voters before the "seven-mile line" was established, and 
it was necessary to make some new provision for them now 
they had become formidable from their numbers. The 
Proprietors fixed the rights of the "Quarter-rights men," ap- 
parently without any consultation with them. They acqui- 
esced as they had always done in the determination of those 
whom they had always recognized as the true lords of the 
soil. (Early Records, Vol. III., p. 20.) "It is ordered that 
the right of the 25 acre men is, each man a quarter part so 
much as a purchaser without the seven mile line (paying a 
quarter part of the charge for the confirmation) ;" [z. e., the 
money paid for the confirmation deeds of the Indian Sachems] 
"the which right doth arise by virtue of their commoning, 
which is within the seven mile bounds, according to the order 
whereunto they have subscribed their hands. Only those 
who were received with 2, full right of commoning within the 
seven mile bounds, are equal with a purchaser without the 
seven mile bounds, in lands & commoning, paying equal part 
to the confirmation, with the purchaser." In making this divi- 
dend no regard was shown to the ordinary small freeholder, 
who had bought from private landholders. He had no inter- 
est or share in the proprietary estate, and no right to vote in 
town meeting upon any question concerning it. The lands 
east of the seven mile line were henceforth to be more care- 
fully reserved from sale, awaiting the possibilities of the fu- 
ture. New settlers were welcomed, but to be content with 
farms beyond the limits of civilized life, unless they were 
were ready to offer^higher prices than had hitherto been giv- 
en. At the same time an order was made in the town meet- 
ing prohibiting sales of the "common lands" yet unsold in 
"Providence neck" (Early Records, Vol. III., p. 21) between 
the Seekonk and the Mooshassuc. This order was not to be 
repealed without the unanimous consent of the Proprietors 
or purchasers and no more of the obnoxious "Purchasers" or 
"Proprietors" shares were to be created. 

But much remained to be done, before there could be a 
division or dividend of lots. A survey of lands in the wilder- 



92 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ness went on slowly in those days. There were many rocky 
uplands which no man would acccept and many brooks and 
limerocks of which many would gladly become owners. An 
hundred and one tracts of tolerably equal value were required 
for the Proprietors alone. Since the beginning of the town, 
no matter of importance had required the adjustment of so 
many details. Some were eager for the first choice. It was 
agreed by the town meeting (February 12, 1665), that Wil- 
liam Hawkins and John Steere should have it, provided they 
paid their dues to the Proprietors, before the drawing.* Roger 
Williams was to be only the third in drawing. The Proprie- 
tors made their own conditions and caused them to be con- 
firmed by the town meeting. " Quarter Day, April 27, 1664." 
(Early Records, Vol. III., pp. 53, 54.) "It is ordered that 50 
acres of upland shall be laid out to every Purchaser of this 
Town, from the 7 mile line eastivard, and none to be laid 
out nearer unto this town than three miles from the said line 
eastwardly, & every 25 acre man to have a quarter part so 
much as a purchaser, & every man to take his place as it fall- 
eth unto him by papers, & none to be laid out until seven 
months after this day [here follow boundaries] ; also what 
meadow is within this seven mile line, three miles eastwardly 
as aforesaid, shall be laid out by equal proportions, making 
distinction between the Purchasers, & the 25 acre men. As 
also what meadow is found within the seven mile line, that is 
to say, 3 miles eastwardly from it, as aforesaid, shall be laid 
out unto every man, answerable unto his proportion, that is 
to say — the purchasers answerable to theirs, & the 25 acre 
men answerable to theirs. Also we agree that whosoever 
pays not in their money which is behind, about the land 
cleared, shall both lose their money which is behind, about 
the land cleared, shall both lose his place in choice, and also 
no lands to be laid out to him, until it be satisfied." Some 
of the Proprietors were in a low pecuniary condition, and it 
seemed to their solvent brethren a hardship that these should 
draw dividends before they had paid the purchase money of 
their shares. (Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 
66, 67.) The order excited dissatisfaction. It expressed the 

*Early Records of Providence, Vol. IIL, p. 69. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 93 

wishes of Harris and Olney and of the most wealthy of the 
Proprietors. But it created dissension and threatened farther 
delay. It was repealed in great part in the following Janu- 
ary. (Vol. III., Early Records, pp. 66, 68.) Another example 
of the want of stability of the early legislation of the town. 
The limerocks were to remain in common. (Early Records, 
Vol. III., p. 93.) All difficulties being overcome the Proprie- 
tors drew another line, three miles nearer to the town of 
Providence. This line was called the "four mile line," and the 
territory was called the "second division" or "fifty acres di- 
vision," situate, lying and being between the " seven mile 
line" and the "four mile line," set by order of the town of 
Providence. Nothing since the planting of Providence had 
furnished so much business to the town meeting, had been 
so often postponed, or fills so much space in the records. 
(Vol. III., Early Records of Providence, February 19, 1665, 
pp. 72-74) 

The great day came at last. There was no lack of a quo- 
rum at the inn where the freemen were assembled. The Pro- 
prietors or purchasers under Williams's deed, who held the 
entire unsold fee simple of the town — the "twenty-five acre 
men," longing for some increase of property and for a corres- 
ponding rise in the world, and rightly regarding this as an 
earnest of other like benefits to come — the small freeholders 
who had little more than small lots or gardens purchased of 
some more prosperous owner, who had found small profit in 
holding them or who had left the town, and who could only 
look on as spectators of a ceremony in which they had no 
share, were all, with very different feelings, eager for the 
great event of the day. Curiosity to see what was coming 
preserved order. Before the formalities began there arose in 
the midst of the assembly, the gaunt and picturesque figure 
of the founder. Age and infirmity were already pressing 
heavily upon him — the burden of his long and laborious ser- 
vice of the colony. In the presence of them all he "witnessed" 
— not now against the usurpation of the Proprietors, of which 
he was partaker, but against the "prophaning of God's wor- 
ship by casting lots." He had no more to say, at least in 
public, of "up streams without limits," or of the "fellowship 



94 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

of vote." All these questions he knew had been decided 
against him, if not judicially, yet by public opinion ; and he 
urged them upon the town meeting no more. Few others saw 
any caricature, still less any imitation of divine worship, in 
this eager grasp after prosperity. We may well believe that 
all smaller matters, even the publications of marriages, were 
hurried through without ceremony, and that the great busi- 
ness of the day was speedily begun. The solid men of the 
plantation, the Proprietors and purchasers, claimed the first 
attention. Ninety-three of these "drew papers" for lots east 
of the "seven mile line." Among the earliest of those who 
"drew papers," was Gregory Dexter, although the whole pro- 
ceeding was in contravention of the doctrines which he had 
for so many years maintained, and was wholly subversive of 
his favorite " Sovereign Plaister." Williams, whose conscience 
was in a disturbed condition, and one Reddock, who was 
charged with not paying his dues, were given leave to draw 
their shares at a future day. The remaining six Proprietors, 
to whom no such opportunity was given, may have shared in 
Williams's scruples or may have been in arrears with their 
payments. Next in order were the "twenty-five acre men." 
They received their portion at the second table, as it were. 
But they made no complaint, satisfied that their investment 
in quarter shares had been so far a good one, and with an 
added opportunity of helping themselves from the Proprie- 
tors' common. The small freeholders offered no opposition, 
looked on with such edification as they might and reserved 
their wrath for town meeting and election days. They were 
well aware of the advantage which the early institutions of 
the town gave them. None of the deeds of these shares could 
be recorded, except by vote of the majority in town meeting, 
and the irate majority resolutely withheld their consent dur- 
ing several years. Their doings at elections we shall pres- 
ently relate.* At the session of the Assembly at Newport, 
after the spring election, two delegates presented themselves 
from the town of Providence. There had been two town 
meetings and two town clerks. William Harris and Arthur 
Fenner the "assistants" of Providence had generally been 
*See Bartlett's Records, Vol. II., 1667, p. 200. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 95 

opposed to each other in town politics and had probably called 
the rival town meetings. The "assistants" were also ex-officio 
members of the town council. Only the meeting called in 
the interest of the Proprietors was recognized by the General 
Assembly or has any record in the town book. William Harris 
and Arthur ffenner appeared as champions of the opposing par- 
ties, and charged each other with "rowtes" at the elections. 
The proceedings are briefly recorded and were closed by a 
letter of admonition from the Assembly to the town of Prov- 
idence. The whole affair reached only this "lame and impo- 
tent conclusion." 

The letter of the Assembly had little effect in calming the 
heated passions of the townsmen. The details are not pre- 
served but we can readily comprehend what followed in the 
" Towne Streete," by the proceedings of the General Assembly. 
Williams next tried his skill in peacemaking. (Town meet- 
ing, March 8, 1668.) "Voted that the presentation in verse, 
presented by Roger Williams unto the Towne, this day, be 
kept among the Records of this Towne." The verses had 
but a brief existence and perished in the burning of the town. 
This was not the least valuable document lost in the Indian 
war. Why may not this precedent be revived, and this un- 
worked vein of poetry be re-opened .'' If there be among us 
youthful aspirants for immortality, why should they not ad- 
dress their strains to the Common Council.'* Perhaps even 
the Board of Aldermen may be so softened as to yield un- 
looked-for answers to their requests. 

Some extraordinary remedy seemed to be demanded by the 
disquiets of Providence. At the General Assembly in May, 
1669, it was " Ordered that Mr. John Clarke be requested to 
write unto the inhabitants of the Towne of Providence, to 
persuade them to a peaceable composure of that uncomfort- 
able difference that is between them." Mr. Clarke could 
have told them, that those who had granted the charter of 
the colony had already seen their mistake and would welcome 
any opportunity to take it away. (Bartlett's R. I. Records, 
Vol. II., pp. 288, 289, 293, A. D. 1669.) This well-meant en- 
deavor failing like its predecessors, it became difficult to 
forecast the future. 



96 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

The contentions about the proprietary lands were all the 
while going on. (Early Records, Vol. III., p. 136.) February 
15, 1668. Arthur ffenner Moderator. "The bill presented by 
Henry Browne, Thomas Hopkins Sen"^- & Shadrack Manton is 
excepted, that each person may take up their land according 
to the former order, without prohibition of common. Voted 
& ordered that the former bill is excepted {i. e., refused) in 
giving liberty that all common shall be free without any 
prohibition." 

There is little that is pleasant in these details of town 
affairs. The strife went on until 1669, the- disorders of the 
town meeting apparently increasing, until the freeholders 
seemed ready for another violent outbreak like that in Gor- 
ton's time. Their cause was just then severely injured by 
their old champion Gregory Dexter. His conscience had now 
become so tender that he refused to pay taxes for the support 
of government. William Harris had not forgotten Dexter's 
"Sovereign Plaister," of sixteen years before, which had stig- 
matized himself and his brethren with dishonesty and oppres- 
sion. He eagerly seized the opportunity to retaliate upon his 
old opponent and to prove that he and the Proprietors were 
the only upholders of property and law. In Harris's conduct 
there was always more of thQ fortiter in re than of the siiaviter 
in modo. Procuring a lawful appointment he levied the tax 
upon Dexter's estate. The vigor and severity of his proceed- 
ings gave occasion to Williams to speak with equal censure 
of them both.* The partizans of each doubtless concurred in 
Williams's disapproval of their adversary. The letters to 
Whipple were apparently of a semi-public nature, being in- 
tended to be read at Whipple's Inn, the great centre of infor- 
mation in those days. 

The confusion in Providence had now reached such a 
height that the legislature became alarmed. They saw that 
the discords of a single town were endangering the privileges 
of the colony. The evil days described in Sir Henry Vane's 
letter seemed to have returned. Such disorders unchecked 
would cause the forfeiture of the charter, and nothing like it 
could be hoped for again. The Assembly at Newport (27th 

*In his letter to John Whipple. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 97 

October, 1669) determined at last to make some show of firm- 
ness. On the last election day, two town meetings had been 
assembled in Providence, each with an official calling himself 
the town clerk. As usual, only the meeting which repre- 
sented the Proprietors has any record in the town book. The 
clerk of one meeting certified that there had been no election ; 
of the other, that deputies had been duly chosen. It seems 
that the day was not ended until there had been a resort by 
angry partisans to arguments more forcible, if not more con- 
vincing, than those of mere words. The legislature refused 
to receive the deputies from Providence as not being duly 
elected, and then made an earnest endeavor to secure peace. 
Probably, the Quakers of Newport prompted these efforts. 
"The General Assembly sadly resenting the conduct of its 
oldest town, & expressing its alarm at the grievous symptoms 
that appeared, of the dangerous contests, distractions, & di- 
visions among our antient loving & honored neighbours, the 
freemen & inhabitants of the Towne of Providence, whereby 
the said Towne is rendered in an incapacitie for transacting 
their own affairs in any measure of satisfactory order, with 
peace & quietness, & consequently unable to help in the 
managing & ordering public affairs by Deputyes, that ought 
to be by them sent to the General Assembly, and jurymen 
to the Court of Tryalles, whereby there is, or seems to be a 
breach in the whole ; upon consideration whereof, & upon 
finding that the case of the said inconveniances ariseth from 
disagreement & dissatisfactions about divisions & dispositions 
of landes, wherein it is impossible that either party can be 
clear from giving & taking occasion of offences, and it is 
altogether unlickly they will compose the differences, without 
some judicious men and unconcerned in the premised con- 
test be helpful by their counsell to that end." The Assembly 
thereupon appointed five commissioners and requested and 
commissioned them to proceed to Providence, and there to 
endeavor to persuade the parties to an arbitration, or to call 
a meeting of the freemen, and to hold a meeting of all the 
freemen, and to elect town officers and town deputies to the 
Assembly (p. 287, &c.). "And to the end that it may appear 
how much we desire the same, the Court doe order that all 



98 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

indictments or actions which have arisen, concerning or hav- 
ing relation to the difference aforesaid in the Town of Provi- 
dence, shall be waived at present & no farther prosecution be 
therein, until the Assembly shall meet ; " . . "hoping in the 
mean time that all animosities will be extinguished."* 

This well-intended scheme utterly failed. At the March 
session in Newport (1699, pp. 292, 293), the Assembly ap- 
pointed two commissioners to ascertain who were the legal 
voters of Providence, and to hold an election for deputies to 
the May session. 

The general sergeant of the colony was directed to be 
present, but we are not informed as to his ability to enforce 
his commands. The labors of the colony's five commission- 
ers were in vain. Neither the Proprietors nor the twenty- 
five acre men would make any compromise which would 
involve the title to their estate. The irritation of the small 
freeholders was equally extreme. 

The commissioners appointed from the leading citizens of 
Newport, visited Providence and strove, with such eloquence 
as was at their command, to accomplish the benevolent de- 
sign of the Assembly. The townsmen were not accustomed 
to pay much deference to the wishes or the exhortations of 
Newport. They were too near to the days of Coddington's 
secession and remembered too well the readiness of Newport 
to abandon the first principles of Rhode Island and to sub- 
ject herself to Plymouth. The disorganization of Providence 
had proceeded far. The town could hold no election, and now 
during several months there had been no town clerk, treas- 
urer, sergeant or constable. The townsmen were left to their 
own discretion and self control, which (as appears from the 
numerous indictments then pending) could not always be 
trusted. The only town authority then remaining, the town 
council, took possession of the records and only delivered 
them up to John Whipple, when duly elected. (Early Records 
of Providence, Vol. III., p. 151 ; pp. 149, 150; December 15, 
1669.) Newport was now under the political control of the 
followers of George Fox. We may imagine the effect of a 
moral lecture given by a committee of Foxians to the adher- 
ents of Roger Williams. 

*Vol. IL, p. 292, Bartlett's Col. Records. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 99 

At the election holden by the State officials, William Har- 
ris and Arthur ffenner were candidates for the place of second 
assistant. There was a difference of opinion among them, as 
to which had been elected by the majority of qualified voters, 
and " they both being not very free to accept upon such 
doubtful tearmes, thereupon by the Assembly, Mr. R. Wil- 
liams was chosen assistant." In reading the memorials of 
these by-gone controversies we may see cause to be glad that 
the Plantations had sent forth no encouragement to the re- 
ligious enthusiasts of the 17th century, who imagined them- 
selves "distressed for conscience." Not many of them 
favored the settlement of controversies upon principles of 
peace and non-resistance. It would be difficult to estimate 
the consequences if the crowds who thronged the meetings 
of Fox and Burnyeat had been favored with discourses from 
the expectants of the " 5th monarchy," or of the "family of 
love." 

Though the adjustment of the quarrel in 1669 decided in 
express terms no principle of colonial law, yet it was effectual 
and final. It was felt by both parties that the success of the 
Proprietors was complete. The Assembly would do nothing 
in aid of the small freeholders who were the partisans of 
Williams. No interest which claimed as its champion the 
author of "George Fox digged out of his Burrows" could 
hope for any thing from the Foxian legislature at 
Newport, and the Proprietors were now well assured 
that they could appropriate Williams's Indian purchase 
at their pleasure. They went on accordingly, first to 
remove any clouds upon their title. During sixteen years, 
the "Sovereign Plaister" had remained upon the town rec- 
ords, as it had been inserted there by Dexter, without any 
authority but his own. The Proprietors had taken no notice 
of its injurious assertions. It seems probable that they 
would have continued to disregard it. But it appears to have 
been quoted in the General Assembly at Newport as evi- 
dence of the public judgment of Providence. On the 15th 
day of December, 1669 (Early Records, Vol. III., pp. 148, 
149), the town meeting was once more assembled. The Pro- 
prietors were in the majority, for Thomas Olney, Jr. (their 



lOO RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

life-long champion), was moderator. William Harris, also, 
was not "wanting to the meeting." On that day it was "voted 
& ordered, that whereas this Assembly having received infor- 
mation that there is a record in our Towne Booke, in the 
126 & 127 pages of that Booke, wherein is the Combination, 
which record is a writing entitled an instrument or Sovereign 
Plaister, and was endorsed Thomas Clemence, the Towne 
having viewed a copy of the sd record, & considering the 
same, the matter therein, doe find it to be the most destruc- 
tive to the peace of our Plantation, & the joint agreements 
of our Towne, & the orders thereof, the which, the Towne 
taking into serious consideration doe find the said matter to 
be utterly unwholesome & illegal, and doe hereby declare the 
said record to be wholly void, null, any agreement order 
or record at any time made, or any clause therein, to the 
contrary notwithstanding." This was an authentic record 
never revoked or questioned by the town. It put an end 
to attempts by the freeholders to defeat the wishes or 
acts of the Proprietors. Henceforth they administered their 
estate in their own way for what they deemed to be their own 
advantage. Gregory Dexter could not have looked back with 
much satisfaction over his sixteen years' labor. He had com- 
mitted a gross impropriety by inserting in the town book a 
private document of a libellous character, without any author- 
ity but his own. The vote of the town meeting was official 
and authoritative, and there was no hope of its reversal. The 
"Sovereign Plaister" was never heard of more. The fore- 
sight of William Harris in cultivating the friendship of the 
Quakers and of a class of small proprietors, — the twenty-five 
acre men, — in union with the larger, had accomplished its 
office. 

(Early Records of Providence, Vol. HI., p. 156, 27th July, 
1670.) The dissatisfied freeholders were not the only com- 
plainants. The unskillfulness of the early surveyors, and the 
tardiness of their action, caused loud complaints among the 
Proprietors themselves. Some of them found other shares 
overlapping their own or intruding into their place. No no- 
tice seem to have been given of the times of laying out the 
meadows, and the usual irregularities ensued. Not until the 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. lOI 

interference of the town meeting did it seem possible to ac- 
complish the work with speediness and peace. The usual 
quarrels about the boundaries of farms seem to have super- 
seded quarrels over controversies of greater moment.* 

Nothing of historical interest occurred during the next two 
or three years. It seems that those who participated in the 
dividend of lots, were not all of them satisfied with the re- 
sult. In 1672 there were rumors that another was in contem- 
plation. It was not viewed with gratification by those who 
could only look on while the town lands were divided among 
a limited number of the older inhabitants. Old grievances 
were not yet allayed. In view of what had passed, Edward 
Smith, of the family at the Town Mill, addressed his counsel 
or remonstrance to the town meeting. He had begun life as 
a "twenty-five acre man," but when he prospered he had ac- 
quired a "Proprietor's share." He held liberal views of the 
policy to be adopted in dealing with the different classes of 
landholders. (Early Records of Providence, Vol. III., pp. 
225, 226.) 27th January, 1672. Mr. Arthur ffenner. Moderator, 
. Voted that the bill presented unto the Towne by 
Edward Smith, shall be put upon the records of the Towne, 
& that each man's land, according to the desire made mani- 
fest in that bill, be recorded in the Towne Booke as their 
lawful right and inheritance, to them & their heirs, forever. 
Providence, the 27th of the nth mo., 1672. This was Edward 
Smith's "proposal." "A reasonable, seasonable & ready way 
of encouragement to Planters in their labour in this our 
Plantations, of Providence, presented to the Town Meeting. 

" Neighbours : Whereas there has been, & yet is, an un- 
comfortable difference in this towne, about a new division of 
lands, which you all sufficiently know, and in the time of this 
difference both sides hath laid out 50 acres to divers men, & 
some of these lands are known to be relaid, & more feared, 
which proveth a great discouragement to laborious men, for 
encouragement therefore to the industrious, do you, my 
neighbours, resolve, determine, these two things : first, that 
all these several shares of land, laid out in the new division 
to Planters, by both sides, shall stand, which shares consist- 

*See petition of Epenetus Olney and the town order upon it. 



102 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ing of 50 acres, less or more, not exceeding 60, & that 
Planters on both sides to whom the said 50 acres was first laid 
out, that land shall be his proper right, whether the said re- 
laying by either side was wilfully, ignorantly or under what 
pretence soever done, any former act or acts, thing or things, 
record or records made to the contrary notwithstanding. 
2d'y, that provision be made for recording the said 50 acre 
shares in the Town's booke, to those men to whom they 
were first laid out, so much of the forest to be suddenly 
subdued by the laborious, & become a fruitful field, which is 
the desire of your neighbour, Edward Smith." It appears 
from this statement of the difficulty, that some of those who 
were disappointed in the shares which they had drawn, had 
caused them to be " relaid," in more desirable places, taking 
to themselves many of the best sites — that some of the Pro- 
prietors held tenaciously to their newly acquired lots, neither 
selling nor cultivating them, and that immigration of " labo- 
rious men " was discouraged. The poorer townsmen found 
it no easier to acquire lands than it had been before. As no 
land transfers or titles could be perfected in those days with- 
out a vote of the town meeting, allowing them to be recorded, 
the dissatisfied party among the townsmen had thus found 
means to delay during several years the registration of the lots 
drawn by obnoxious Proprietors.* The Proprietors who had 
"relaid" or exchanged their shares, were by the resolution 
of Edward Smith, remanded to their original drawings. No 
farther hindrance was to be given to their registration. This 
power of a town meeting over freehold estates, thus summa- 
rily exercised at the request of Edward Smith, gives a view 
of the despotism of a landholder's government in those days. 
Arthur ffenner was the chief of the liberal party. His elec- 
tion as moderator shows that they were in the majority at 
that meeting. The adoption of Edward Smith's resolution, 
proves that all parties were now resolved to avoid further 
contention upon this subject and that the Proprietors had 

*None but the Proprietors were entitled to vote upon matters concern- 
ing the proprietary estate, but when lots had been drawn by individuals, 
they ceased to be parts of the proprietary estate, and were subject to the 
votes of the entire body of small freeholders. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO3 

gained in substance all that they had claimed. The kindli- 
ness of spirit manifested by Edward Smith, probably gained 
the adoption of his proposed compromise. The dividend was 
confirmed, all lots were now to be secure, but only as they 
were at first drawn. A dissatisfied Proprietor was not to be 
permitted to exchange or "relay" his drawing, and thus to 
select for himself one of the most desirable homesteads, in- 
stead of the chance benefit of the lottery. Even a Proprietor 
might be displeased at the greediness of some of his brethren, 
who, having drawn what they considered little better than 
blanks among the Proprietors' chances, made that a pretext 
for helping themselves to the finest sites in the Plantations. 
Perhaps the unanimity in adopting Edward Smith's resolu- 
tion may be in part thus explained. 

So great a dissension had been created by the first divi- 
dend that some years elapsed before there was an attempt at 
another. The Proprietors waited until 1675. They had es- 
tablished yet another division of their estate, "situate, lying 
& being between the seven mile line & the four mile line set 
by order of the Town of Providence." In order to pacify 
every one, on the 6th of April, 1675, it was "Voted & ordered 
that unto every one that hath a right in those lands beyond the 
'seven mile line,'* set by the Town of Providence, shall be to 
each right one hundred & fifty acres of upland, laid out to 
them, any law or laws formerly made to the contrary notwith- 
standing." It does not appear whether the "twenty-five acre 
men" were becoming unquiet again. The designation had now 
become inapplicable and little more is heard of them in 
that character. 

On the 1 2th of April, 1675, eighty-one Proprietors "drew 
papers" for fifty-acre lots west of the seven mile line. The 
business was not then completed. On the 24th of May, 1675, 
the Proprietors alone "drew papers" for lots between the 
"four mile line" and the "seven mile line." There were ninety- 
five proprietors living eastward of the seven-mile line. They 
did not then hanker after estates in the near neighborhood of 
an Indian frontier, even although they were to be had for 
nothing. It was long before they were offered another oppor- 
*This included the twenty-five acre men. 



104 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

tunity. At the dividend in April, 1675, ^ protest was offered 
in behalf of Joshua Verin, by Thomas Harris, Sr., and 
Thomas Olney, Jr., Epenetus Olney, and John Whipple, 
asserting his right to a Proprietor's share, which, it would 
appear, some of the townsmen still wished to subject to for- 
feiture for non-residence. More enlightened views of property 
were now prevailing, and Verin was allowed his claim as one 
of the original planters of Mooshassuc* Little else occurred 
during the present year. There was little or no excitement 
about the "draught." The final adjustment of their rancor- 
ous old quarrel was drawing near, in the natural order of 
events. 

The Narragansetts were already restless and little was 
needed to provoke a general uprising of the New England 
tribes. The following order may show the state of affairs in 
Providence. Town Meeting, October 14, 1675. Arthur 
ffenner. Moderator. "Ordered that six men every day shall 
be sent out of the Towne to discover what Indians shall come 
to disquiet the Towne, and that every housekeeper and all 
men residing in this Towne shall take his turn, & he that 
shall refuse to take his turn, shall forfeit to the Towne for 
every day's default, five shillings, and that it shall be taken by 
distraint, by the constable and that this order shall stand in full 
force until the Towne order to the contrary." The end was 
already near when the town meeting imposed this heavy burden. 
The weak and vain Canonchet, disregarding the counsel of Wil- 
liams, set about to establish a military reputation for himself. 
The manner in which he did it belongs to the history of the 
State.f In due time came the ravaging of Narragansett and 
Coweset, and, in March, 1676, the burning of Providence. Suf- 
fice it to say, that with their habitations there perished most 
of the property of the planters. For the moment the hopes of 
the townsmen seemed to be at an end. Some of them left 
Providence, never to return. It offered few inducements to 
settlers during many coming years. When it revived, a tax of 
;^io was deemed sufficient for its ability, while Newport had 

*The names of those who " drew papers " for shares of land west of 
the seven-mile line are given in the records of 24th of May, 1675. 

tDr. Stone has so thoroughly investigated the subject of the burning 
of Providence that it need not be done again. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO5 

lost little or nothing. Those who came back to rebuild the 
town were chiefly the first planters at Mooshassuc and at 
Pawtuxet and their families. These were the depositaries of 
its earliest traditions and they raised it up anew upon its old 
foundations. In the general ruin there came, almost for the 
first time, a period of union and peace. Even Williams and 
Harris could act together in a committee for the disposing 
of Indian slaves. While some were removing to other and 
stronger colonies, the Browns, Arnolds, Angells, Olneys, 
Carpenters, Rhodeses, came back to do their work over again, 
and they did it effectually. The old Proprietors were still 
recognized as the legitimate rulers of the town, and long 
years after the rebuilding, they were still as rigid as their 
fathers in their scrutiny and rejection of applicants for the 
"fellowship of vote," and for permission to purchase lots and 
to become inhabitants. One or two examples will suffice : 
1681-2. "Voted & Granted unto William Hudson formerly an 
apprentice to Joshua ffoote, leave & liberty to buy land of any 
free inhabitant of this towne, & settle among us." " It is 
granted unto Daniel Jenckes that he hath liberty of the 
towne allowed him to dwell & abide with his brother Jenckes 
whereby he may learn & perfect his trade at his brother 
Joseph Jenckes." 

With the revival of the town, some of its old troubles re- 
appeared in full activity. Organized opposition to the Pro- 
prietors now sunk into displays of private malice. As before 
the war in 1676 there were (nth March, 1675-6) many in- 
truders and trespassers upon the newly opened lands west of 
the seven-mile line. Four persons were appointed to warn 
off and to remove trespassers. It was necessary to bring the 
whole tract into private ownership, ffenner Smith, Ephraim 
Carpenter and Thomas Olney, Jr., were of the first who filled 
this undesirable office. How long this frontier police was 
maintained does not appear. 

Some unexpected consequences followed the Indian war. 
The colony recognized no successors to king or sachem. 
There was no longer any fear of their bargains or alliances 
with Massachusetts. No Indian claims to lands were any 
longer regarded. The fields "up streams without limits" 



I06 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

were now the fee simple of the Proprietors, as Harris had 
always maintained. There was now no Indian chief whose 
title deed would have been sought or accepted, and all fears 
of a new purchase from them, west of the plantations, were 
dispelled. Henceforth the colony knew the Indians only as 
tramps and vagrants, and at a later day (when they had ceased 
to be Indians and were becoming negroes) — as wards. 

Other influences were coming in of which the former gen- 
eration of townsmen had known nothing. Charles II. had 
now been several years upon the throne. Republicanism 
was crushed and silenced for a century to come. The golden 
age of the English aristocracy had begun. The English Rev- 
olution of 1688-9 carefully kept itself free from every taint 
of democracy or equality. Property now ruled instead of 
Puritanism. No voice from English literature or politics gave 
sympathy or encouragement to the principles upon which 
American society had been founded. Governments were 
everywhere harsh, peremptory, based everywhere upon landed 
estates or military force. The so-called English Common- 
wealth had been no exception. In such an age the society 
of Proprietors of Providence was not obsolete or antiquated, 
or necessarily unpopular. It was not possible to set up any tol- 
erable imitation of English political institutions on this side 
of the sea, but the colonies found no difficulty in forming an 
oligarchy in accordance with their own wealth and their own 
notions. In fact, municipal corporations everywhere were 
ruled by contrivances very like in principle to those of the 
purchasers of Providence. There was no democratic party 
anywhere. The newest religious party was that of the Qua- 
kers. They were monarchical in their tendencies and earnest 
seekers after the good things of this world. They had their 
own way in Rhode Island. 

It will suffice merely to mention the Proprietors' dividends 
of the following years. On the 17th day of March, 1683-4, 
draughts were made for shares of land west of the seven mile 
line, among the proprietors, including Joshua Verin. One 
hundred Proprietors, Roger Williams, 2d, among them, 
drew lots. He had, it seems, reconsidered his father's scru- 
ples, and took his share with the rest. Perhaps he reasoned 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO7 

that as the Narragansetts were now extinct, he could, with a 
good conscience, claim his part in their inheritance. Changes 
were now passing over the plantations at Mooshassuc. The 
older generation who had borne the burdens of its early 
years was passing away. Williams came no more to the town 
meeting and Thomas Olney was no longer heard at the Town 
Mill. Harris died alone, but, we may trust, not without friends, 
in a foreign land. With the old party leaders much of their 
bitterness passed away. The questions over which they had 
quarreled had found their own solution. The new age had 
interests of its own. They did not fight over again the battles 
in which their fathers had worn out their lives. The Indian 
war had left behind it a plentiful crop of troubles in every 
town. Their Indian land titles had been far from satisfactory 
and did not improve in value in the hands of speculators from 
Massachusetts. The present moment of peace and goodwill 
seemed an appropriate one for closing all controversies over 
them. The opportunity was readily seized, and was handled 
with a skill which would haved done no discredit to modern 
politicians. The Quakers had control of Newport and its de- 
pendencies, of which they were the chief landholders, and 
they sympathized with the friends of Harris. Each town was 
to have what its great men wanted. In 1682 an act passed 
the Assembly at Newport on the 3d day of May, entitled, 
"An act confirming the grants heretofore made by the inhab- 
itants of the Towns of Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, 
Warwick and Westerly, and to enable said Towns to make 
prudential laws and orders for the better regulating their 
Town affairs." 

"Whereas in the 15th year of the Reign of our Royal 
Sovereign Lord Charles the 2d of Blessed Memory, there 
was a Charter granted to this his Majesty's Colony of Rhode 
Island & Providence Plantations in New England, in which 
was contained many gracious privileges granted unto the free 
inhabitants thereof, & amongst others of the said priviledges, 
there was granted unto the General Assembly of said Colony, 
full power & authority to make & ordain laws suiting the 
nature, & constitution of the place, in particular to direct, 
rule & order all matters relating to the purchase of lands of 



I08 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

the native Indians ; And this present Assembly taking into 
their serious consideration that the lands of the several 
Towns of Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, Warwick & 
Westerly were purchased by the several inhabitants thereof 
of the native Indians, chief Sachems of the Country, before 
the granting of the said charter, so that an order or direction 
from the said Assembly could not be obtained thereon, and 
it having been thought necessary and convenient for the rea- 
sons aforesaid, that the lands of the aforesaid towns should 
by an act of the General Assembly of his Majesty's Colony 
be confirmed to the inhabitants thereof, according to their 
several respective rights and interests therein ; Be it there- 
fore enacted by this present Assembly, &c.. That all the 
lands lying & being within the limits of each & every of the 
aforesaid Towns of Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, War- 
wick & Westerly, according to their several respective pur- 
chases thereof, made & obtained of the Indian Sachems, be, 
& hereby is allowed of, ratified & confirmed to the Proprie- 
tors, of each of the aforesaid towns, and to each & every of 
the said Proprietors their several & respective rights and 
interests therein, by virtue of any such purchase or purchases 
as aforesaid : to have & to hold all the aforesaid lands by vir- 
tue of the several purchases thereof, with all the appurte- 
nances, &c. to them belonging, or in any wise appertaining, 
to them the aforesaid Proprietors, their heirs, & assigns for- 
ever," — "in as full large & ample manner to all intents, con- 
structions & purposes whatsoever, as if the said lands & 
every part thereof had been purchased of the Indian Sachems 
by virtue of any grant or allowance obtained from the Gen- 
eral Assembly of this Colony after the granting of the afore- 
said charter ; And whereas there is within several of the 
Towns within this Colony, considerable of lands lying yet in 
common or undivided, & for the more orderly way & manner 
for the several Proprietors — their managing the prudential 
affairs thereof, & for the more effectual making of just & 
equal division or divisions of the same, so that each & every 
of the Proprietors may have their true & equal part & pro- 
portion of rights & that the exact boundaries of each & 
every man's allotments when laid out to him, may be kept 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. IO9 

in perpetuum. It is further ordered & enacted by the author- 
ity aforesaid, that it shall & may be lawful for the Proprietors 
of each & every such Town within this Colony being con- 
vened by a warrant from under the hand & seal of an Assistant, 
or Judge of the Peace in such Towns — the occasion thereof 
being specified in the warrant — for them or the major part of 
them to meet, to choose or appoint a clerk, &c., a surveyor 
or surveyors, &c., & such or so many other officers as they 
shall judge needful & convenient for the orderly carrying on 
and management of the whole affairs of such community, and 
in like manner to proceed from time to time as need shall 
require. And it is further ordered that each & every town 
within this colony shall & hereby are fully Impowered to 
make & ordain all such acts or orders for the well manage- 
ment Rule & ordering all prudential affairs within their or 
each of their respective bounds & limits as to them shall 
seem most meet & convenient. Always provided, & in these 
cases, such acts & orders are not repugnant or disagreeable 
to the laws of the Colony." 

Other sections of this act provide for the other towns. 
Everything is here confirmed and made valid as the Proprie- 
tors desired. All objections to the sachems' titles were now 
removed, never to be heard again. 

The Proprietors were now a corporation. They could act 
by majorities — could no longer be controlled or visited by the 
town meeting, but only by the Legislature, which was full of 
the representatives of towns having corporations like their 
own. They were now popularly styled "The Proprietors." 
The name of "Purchasers," referring to an event long passed, 
became obsolete. They could divide their estate at their own 
pleasure. The lands "up streams without limits " were 
assured to them, and no courts could question their title, or 
suggest any constitutional scruples. 

The corporation made no change in its policy or its 
methods. They still discouraged all pursuits but those of 
farmers, as they had done from the beginning. Thus, De- 
cember 14, 1681, "All inhabitants or strangers are prohib- 
ited from making coale or tar from pitchwood, &c., except to 
the quantity of ten gallons for his own use." \ex. gr. see 



no RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

February 24, 166 1.] It had been the old practice of the 
town, during the summer, that the "people" (i. e., the free- 
holders) were allowed to pasture their cattle in " Providence 
Neck,"* "paying for the damage that they doe." This was 
still permitted. On the 17th of July, 1682 (p. 6$), an order 
of the town meeting recites that " Many persons to ye greate 
damage of ye Towne & of every commoner therein, through 
their covetousness, do irregularly & at unreasonable times, cut 
ye thatch, growing upon ye towne's common, thinking to 
benefit themselves, and to damnific ye commons belonging 
to ye towne, and thereby in a little time will ruinate the 
same to ye Towne's great damage." The penalty was a 
forfeiture of all the thatch so cut and ten shillings for every 
load, to be paid to the town treasury. This annoyance lasted 
through several generations. Against these offenders the 
authority of the law could be successfully invoked, as the 
thatch-beds were in full view of the "Towne Streete." [See 
Town meeting Records, July 27, 1704.] Swine and goats 
were the chief pests of the eary Proprietors, who, in spite of 
all their prohibitions, saw these reckless marauders wasting 
their meadow lands, f 

(At this time, A. D. 1682, the west side of the "Towne 
Streete" was not built up. The houses on the east side of 
it stood upon a high bank looking down upon the shore and 
over the waters of the cove, 7th April. July 27th, 1704, 
Daniel Mathewson of Providence, for ;^30 conveys lands on 
" the south side of the salt water cove which lieth before 
the row of houses in said Providence Towne,") 

Their orders were time and again renewed and revoked. 
The people resisted the forfeiture of a valuable part of their 

*Before the division of the town of Providence, that part of it lying 
between the Seeckonck and the Mooshassuc was called in deeds and 
records " Providence Neck." 

fA new generation has now grown up which remembers nothing 
of the ancient thatch-beds on the north side of the cove, and on the 
banks of the Wanasquatucket. They were once among the most valu- 
able possessions of the Proprietors, yielding a sure income. Their 
destruction, caused by the narrowing and filling of the cove on the build- 
ing of the Worcester Railroad, 1843-5, was one of the first changes in 
the scenery of the old town. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. Ill 

subsistence and during the first century of the town its rec- 
ords abound with complaints of the aggressions of the small 
freeholders and preserve memorials of the unavailing endeav- 
ors of the Proprietors to protect their domain. Their exclu- 
sive rights, the rural freemen never learned to respect. 
Protection was impossible, for there was no efficient police, 
and the proprietary lands were everywhere unenclosed. Far 
on in the next century, so long as any considerable part of 
them remained unsold, we meet with orders like this : Feb- 
ruary 6, 1710-11, "Swine found on the common without 
yoke or ring in the nose, to be forfeit." In its earlier days 
these prohibitions,, and others like them, were not without 
their terrors, for the town meeting was alike informer, wit- 
ness and judge. Years after the Proprietors had withdrawn 
their affairs from its cognizance, they still, as the chief land- 
holders, controlled its decisions. In 1710 (May 22),* they 
ordered that "Goates are not to go at liberty on ye common." 
The "goates" still supplied a large portion of the meat of 
the poorer citizens, who were not to be allowed to feed them 
at the Proprietors' expense. In 1720, geese made their ap- 
pearance on the common and fell under the same condemna- 
tion. July 27, 1720. "No goose is to go upon the commons 
highways or waters, or on any other persons land, on penalty 
of forfeiture." These are a few, but sufficient, specimens of 
the legislation of the Proprietors for the protection of their 
estate. All was in vain. The freeholders persisted in cut- 
ting timber in the unguarded forests and their owners vainly 
threatened those who felled their oaks and pines. The swine 
of the freeholders made havoc of the meadows, and the nar- 
row policy of the Proprietors left them with little sympathy 
or redress. The smaller freeholders furnished most of the 
jurors, and we may be assured that they did not incline 
strongly against their own brethren in a legal contest with a 
Proprietor. These are specimens of the ills which befell the 
landholders of those days. They were increased by the loss 
of many evidences of title, at the burning of the town. This 

*We cannot blame the Proprietors. The "goates" devoured the 
young seedlings and after a few years their ravages would have become 
apparent in the total disappearance of the forests. It was fortunate 
that other meats became plentiful before this mischief was done. 



112 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

was deplored by Thomas Olney at the town meeting of 
1684, as a cause of many succeeding troubles. Bound- 
aries in the wilderness were irrecoverably lost, and a re-ad- 
justment could only be effective after a long and irritating 
controversy of Proprietors with freeholders, or with each 
other. In those early days wealth had its anxieties as well as 
now. Some of these arose from unskillfulness or want of 
care, as thus : March 17, 1683-4. By a vote of this day it 
appears that the business of the draught of the 150 acres on 
the west side the seven-mile line was so imperfect that "each 
man's turn cannot be known," "by reason that several 
names are wanting, by which it cannot appear that they ever 
had any draught," and "some appear named more than once, 
as if they had two draughts, and some twice numbered." Let 
us not enquire the name of the town clerk of those days or 
why the landholders paid so little attention to their titles. 
We may not blame them if they deemed the property to be 
of little value. We may be content to learn that the whole 
draught was declared void and null, and that a second 
draught was ordered to be made.* 

It might be of interest to say something of the methods 
and amount of taxation by which those early freemen main- 
tained their social order. It is not now possible to give any 
full account of it, the papers of the town treasurer having 
shared the fate of the other documents of the old town. 
Great irregularities in levying and collecting taxes were com- 
mon during the first century of the town. June 13, 1681, ex. 
gr. "John Whipple chosen Moderator . . . Whereas our 
Magestrates, with some others, took upon them to make a 
rate (as it is said by Town order) and have rated such as by 

*December 2, 1685. On a question being made as to an order about 
lands, made in 1658, concerning all the lands on the west side of the 
Mooshassuc, it is recited that "said order by reason of damage which 
our town records sustained in the late Indian War hath miscarried." 
July 27, 1686. A title which had once been recorded was ordered to be 
again recorded from the recollection of the town clerk, who asserted that 
" he had seen it." 1678. Daniel Abbott desires to transfer a return of 
his land into the new book from the old, which is " much defaced by the 
Indians, 'for the more security.'" His request was granted by the 
town meeting. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II3 

Town's order they had not to doe to rate, some being not 
freemen, some widdows, & some other. Voted by y' towne, 
that no person or persons whatsoever, shall be rated to pay 
Sergeant's wages or houserent, that are not ireemen of this 
towne, or have paid their equal proportion to each of them or 
any of them that they have paid : any order to y*^ contrary 
hereof in any wise not withstanding."* 



SOME FRAGMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE GROWTH OF THE TOWN 
UNDER THE RULE OF THE OLD PROPRIETARY MEETINGS. 

December 28, 168 1. " Voated by ye Towne that there be a 
sufficient highway kept for ye Towne's use, of 3 poles wide 
from ye towne streete to ye waterside, that ye Towne if they 
see cause, may set up a warfe at the end of it, in the most 
convenient place that may be, and in order thereunto, the 
two surveyors & Thomas ffield are appointed to state the 
place & lay it out, and make return to ye Towne Meeting, ye 
next Quarter day or as soon as they can doe it." This was 
by the town, but it needed the assent of the Proprietors 
before any of their own land could be taken. This was a lo- 
cal improvement designed to give access to the "meadows of 
Weybossett." The "warfe and ferry" long preceded the 
bridge. The ferry-boats plied between the " towne streete 
and Weybossett Street ;" all the intervening distance has 
been filled up in modern times. The Proprietors had land 
enough yet undivided and unimproved on the west side of 
the river, but let them have the credit of this bit of enter- 
prise. 

Under the narrow and rigid rule of a society like this, 
enterprise became impossible. If any of the young men 
were infected with it, their only resource was to seek a habi- 
tation elsewhere. There was no reason why Providence 
should not have found in the fisheries and in navigation 
greater diversity of occupation and breadth of ideas. Its 
maritime advantages were equal to those of Salem, of New- 

*Any consideration of this subject would occupy too large a space and 
lead us too far from our present subject. 



114 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

buryport, or of New London, all active in nautical adventure 
from the beginning ; but at the close of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, when the town had some fourteen hundred inhabitants, 
there was not among them the owner of a single sea-going 
vessel. The proprietary estate had been in many ways a 
heavy burden. The sons of those who had rejected the en- 
lightened project of Williams, now began to perceive that they 
had only postponed the day of their own prosperity. As 
they rid themselves of swamp and meadow, rocky and upland, 
the townsmen began to study the resources of the Bay. For 
sixty years few had joined them but beside occasional pur- 
chasers of small farms. Such was the only property offered 
in the market of Providence. After Philip's war, some saw 
there were other and better things within their reach than 
the Indian liquor trade, so vigorously denounced by Williams. 
It was in the power of the townsmen to encourage other 
forms of industry, by promoting iron-works, and the produc- 
tion of naval stores. But the older generation still desired 
none of these things, and consulted only what they conceived 
to be their own interests, by sales to approved emigrants, or 
by dividends of lots among themselves.* Their policy was 
uniform and consistent. So late as 1662, the town meeting 
had ordered that, " no person whatsoever, whether towns- 
men or other shall carry or cause to be carried either directly 
or indirectly off the Commons any fencing stuff, butts, pipe- 
staves, clayboards (sic), shingles, pitch-lights, or any other 
sort of building timber out of this Plantation, without leave 
of the town ;" and a heavy penalty was provided for the 
transgressor. This was a virtual prohibition of shipbuilding. 
The first Proprietors — all farmers — had no desire to encour- 
age the foreign or even the coasting trade. So it was still. 
Twenty years later they adhered to the same policy. Gabriel 
Bernon, a shipowner and merchant, proposing to set up the 
manufacture of naval stores, desired for that purpose a lease 

*The Proprietors so/d lots to their own members on the same terms as 
to others, but when the lots were given /reefy , it was always by an equal 
dividend to each one of them. This had been an old custom. It was 
re-affirmed by the Proprietors on the 6th of March, 1693-4. They then 
voted that no individual Proprietor should have any land laid out for 
himself, but that an equal allotment should be made to all. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II 5 

of pine woods near Pawtucket. In that age of maritime ad- 
venture and war, Boston men were growing rich by shipment 
of masts, spars, tar, and turpentine to England. Why should 
not Providence have a share in the profit ? But the Proprie- 
tors in control of the town meeting peremptorily refused the 
request. This was their resolution on January 27, 1703-4 : 
"Whereas Mr. Gabriel Bernon exhibited a bill desiring of 
this Towne to grant him the use of all the pine trees on the 
black hill, & from thence to Pawtucket River, within our 
Plantation, to leake them and make pitch of the turpentine, 
& also grant him 20 acres of land near that place. The 
Towne did not see cause to grant the bill." 

They were not all equally narrow in their views, and some 
of the younger Proprietors occasionally joined with the free- 
holders in thwarting their associates. But still the older 
Proprietors maintained their authority, while the influence of 
the seventeenth century ruled the town. There were occa- 
sional signs that a new generation was growing up. 

As the ordinary freeholders increased in numbers, they 
made new aggressions upon the lands of the Proprietors west 
of the seven-mile line. The number of Proprietors was still 
limited to loi, and their means of self-protection did not 
improve. They built no houses, made no leases, gave no 
sites to the town, and derived their income only from their 
sales. This age has been accustomed to regard its small 
landholders as a conservative body. It was not so in New 
England in the seventeenth century, as it is not in Old Eng- 
land of the nineteenth. Some of these saw that if Provi- 
dence hoped to gain any rank among the New England 
towns, it must find some other occupation besides that of 
quarreling over its land titles. As the old generation slowly 
disappeared, whose names ever are associated chiefly with 
these local strifes, topics appear in the town meeting book 
which had found no mention in former days. It is only from 
fragments like these that the history of the Proprietors can 
be traced, when the writings of Fox and Williams aid us no 
more. 

During their earlier years the Proprietors gave little of 
their estate to any purposes of public benefit. The first of 



lib RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

these was the Town Mill, which, however, was a necessity of 
their own as well as of the freemen at large. They made no 
improvements and gave no aid to those who would make 
them, even though it might promote the increase of the 
town. In order to promote decorum in public meetings, Wil- 
liams had desired to separate the town meeting from the 
tavern which- had been its only shelter. To this end, he 
offered to make a contract with the town to erect a building 
of convenient size. His project was for a time entertained, 
but, through what influences we know not, before it could be 
effected, the Proprietors or town meeting discharged and 
released him from his undertaking without cooperation or 
thanks. (See January, 1666, Early Records of Providence, 
Vol. III., p. 92.) They gave no aid to this useful design 
either of lots or timber, and it was nqt revived during sixty 
years. In 1695-6, Quarter day, January 27th, some of the 
more enlightened inhabitants asked of the town meeting a 
" spot of land," as they called it, "to set a schoolhouse on," 
about the highway called Dexter's Lane, or about Stamper's 
Hill. The Proprietors authorized them to take forty feet, 
square, but offered no building material, which would have 
been more valuable, and left the benevolent projectors to ac- 
complish the work as they might. They were not successful. 
The fathers of the town never perceived that small gifts, 
from their estate would have increased the value of the whole 
domain. They gave no aid of lots or timber for the building 
of wharves or bridges or public works, nor allowed any one 
to fell trees for such uses. They waited for other men's im- 
provements to make their own estate more valuable, while it 
was still exempted from the taxes which were borne by the 
rest of the community. Long after the beginning of the 
eighteenth century, so long as they met with the town meet- 
ing, at which they wielded the power of the town, they de- 
nied residence in it to every one who did not please their 
fancy. One or two examples may suffice : " At a Town Meet- 
ing, Quarter day, October 27, 1705, Thomas Olney, Moderator, 
Samuel Mead desired of the town to accommodate him with 
'forty or fifty acres of land, or what they see cause.' The 
Purchasers & Proprietors having considered his bill, do not see 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. II 7 

cause to accommodate him with any land." " Samuel Ralph 
having desired for an accommodation of lands, but the Pro- 
prietors do not see cause to grant it." It might be thought 
that one who offered to buy or to cultivate fifty acres of wild 
land was not a useless or undesirable citizen, but in many 
such cases the application was rejected, apparently, for no 
better reason than personal dislike. [Those who would be- 
come inhabitants of the Plantations were still forced to buy 
land directly from the Proprietors. This alone gave them a 
foothold. The freemen who had already bought, seldom sold 
their homesteads in those days. The greater number of 
recorded sales were still directly from the Proprietors. The 
deeds were still returned by the Proprietors' surveyors and 
"confirmed" by the town meeting, before they could be 
recorded.] 

The generation then living (1702) were a little more liberal. 
April 27, Quarter day, twenty acres were granted, but for 
life only, to John Tabor, " on account of the burning of his 
house & goods." He was an ancient inhabitant, is mentioned 
with respect, and was in danger of becoming a charge upon 
the town. But such displays of generosity were infrequent. 
Now that in a new generation a demand for town lots had 
sprung up, though it was but small, the private meetings of 
the purchasers and proprietors became more frequent. These 
were appointed at other times than those of the regular 
town meetings, and were only for the purpose of consider- 
ing matters relating to lands. (See January 27, 1693-4.) The 
Proprietors had many questions before them which do not 
vex citizens of modern days. They enquired not merely as 
to the solvency of the buyer, but as to his fitness for becom- 
ing an inhabitant of the town. Such doubts were not always 
solved without difference of opinion and debate. 

Sixth March, 1693-4. " It is ordered that after the last 
day of April next at the first opportunity convenient, the 
Purchasers' surveyor may proceed to lay out the land on the 
west side of the seven-mile line, 150 acres to each right, 
giving notice of the same, that each person may repayre to 
take his turne," "according to his draught or lott." Arthur 
ffenner had become impatient of the chances of the proceed- 



Il8 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ings, and laid out land for himself. His acts were adjudged 
to be illegal. This dividend was ordered privately, and with- 
out consultation with the town meeting. Sales of town lots 
were frequent during this year. Whoever has any curiosity 
respecting the dividend of this year, may find the order of 
the Proprietors respecting it, in the records of December 28, 
1694. The town was not yet very prosperous, and it was 
necessary to give some encouragement to craftsmen.* April 
27,1696. Thomas Olney, Moderator. . . " It is granted 
unto Joseph Goldsmith at his request, that he may have lib- 
erty to set up a smith's shop upon the common between 
Thomas Harris, his lott, and Samuel Whipple's house, pro- 
vided he damnifieth not the highway." This was in the part 
of the town street, now called "Constitution Hill." We 
have many illustrations from the records that the townsmen 
of those days were not so delicate in their sensibility to 
annoyance by sights or sounds or odors as their descendants 
in our day. We have now sufficient evidence of the new di- 
rection in which young ambition was seeking success. April 
27, 1697. Thomas Olney, Moderator. . "Whereas Ar- 
thur ffenner hath desired ye grant of a ninety foot lott on 
Waybossett side, near Muddy bridge, the Towne have con- 
sidered his request & doe conclude that each Proprietor ought 
to be equal in those sort of lotts, according to proportion, & 
therefore doe defer ye matter to farther consideration & a 
way may be so considered & ordered that each Proprietor be 
so accommodated, there being several bills before depending 
for a way for like grants." The old practice was becoming 
burdensome. An enterprising Proprietor who wished to un- 
dertake some mercantile business must first assume the labor 
of procuring a general dividend, and still be uncertain 
whether he should draw the lot which he wanted, or that 
the Proprietor who had drawn it would sell it to him, Ar- 
thur ffenner had renewed the old agitation. On the 7th of 
February, 1697-8, a committee was appointed for a grant of 
" forty-foot lotts, called warehouse lotts." On the 7th of Feb- 

*Had there been much demand for mechanical labor, the artificers 
would have come without encouragement. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. I IQ 

ruary, 1697-8, it was ordered that the Purchasers and Pro- 
prietors meet together on the loth of March to consider of 
a division of land on the seven-mile line, and to take order for 
effecting the same. " loth of March. Ordered that each per- 
son who shall have right to land on ye west side of ye seven- 
mile line, pay in i shilling for running ye western line of our 
Plantation, before he shall have any land laid out on ye west 
side of ye 7 mile line." The population was still so scattered 
that the boundary was not well marked and needed renewal. 
It seems that the old Proprietors were not always more 
prompt in their payments than some of their posterity have 
been, and that they sometimes needed to be sharply reminded 
of the fact. 

When lots were wanted for some use deemed public, the 
town meeting, disregarding the old law, now began to help 
themselves out of the Proprietors' estate, and to be charitable 
at their expense. Sometimes they still permitted an influen- 
tial citizen to exchange his lot for a better one. We have 
already remarked upon the want of any constitutional protec- 
tion to property in those days, and the Proprietors, so long 
as their lots were still numerous, were careful not to risk 
their popularity by refusal of a favor. A few examples will 
suffice: July 27, 1699. "Whereas J. Olney hath this day 
desired of the Towne to accommodate him with a lot, forty 
foote square to set a smith's shop upon, & what other use, 
may be made of the same, the Towne having considered the 
bill, & in consideration that the sdadjohn Olney hath not land 
in the town to build upon, and the town being desirous that 
he should follow his trade of a smith in ye towne, doe grant 
unto the said John Olney that he shall have a forty foote lott 
in the Western end of the lane called Dexter's lane, neare 
about the place where the stocks now stand, and so to be 
laid out, as it may not damnify the highway." The family 
took care of their poor relations at the public expense. 

In an age of constant war and dread of French invasion, 
military exercises were everywhere popular. Several training 
fields were provided out of the proprietary estate, on the 
west side of the town. These were not very extensive, none 
of them exceeding three acres in extent. The evolutions 



I20 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

there performed could have caused little alarm to Canada or 
to France. January 27, 1698-9. The town meeting grants 
three acres for a training place. July 27, 1699, another train- 
ing field was established west of the Mooshassuc. The next 
year saw the most valuable gift as yet made by the Proprie- 
tors. It was proposed by Thomas Olney, doubtless with 
their assent. Let it not detract from their merit and their 
forecast, that this was the most barren and desolate sandhill 
in the town ; of which no one, during sixty years, had shown 
any inclination to relieve them. In the month of June, 1700, 
the North Burying Ground was established. It was to re- 
main in perpetual common for a training field and for the 
burial of the dead. Notwithstanding their declaration of 
trust, the town sold a part of the land at the south end of 
the field, but the city has made a more ample purchase at 
the north, and its perpetuity is well assured. So conserva- 
tive were the old townsmen of their primitive custom of 
sepulture, that little use was made of the new cemetery dur- 
ing twenty years, except for military purposes. Gravestones 
and monuments of any kind were then so few that it cannot 
be determined when interment at the "north end" became 
the usual practice of the town. Many of the old Proprietors 
have there their resting places — let it preserve a kindly re- 
membrance of one good deed of care and thoughtfulness for 
those who were to follow them. 

The Proprietors' town property was now in some danger of 
melting away, from the liberal grants of the town meeting. 
Strangers to their society who sought to enter upon mercan- 
tile pursuits which were generally declined by the Proprietors 
were now presenting petitions for "warehouse lots," by the 
waterside. There were long rows of these lots as yet unoc- 
cupied, in the unnamed swamp, where are now Weybosset 
and Westminster streets, and on the west side of the town 
street, opposite to the home lots on the east side. Buyers 
were impatient of the rule of the Proprietors and the town 
was standing still. The freeholders now persisted in voting 
upon all questions relating to the sales of proprietary lands. 
It was not always easy, in a thinly attended town meeting to 
determine who the Proprietors were. They might be caught 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 121 

unawares, when few of their number were present, as no 
previous notice seems to have been required of a motion to 
give away or sell one of their lots. By their liberal grants 
from the "commons," the freemen were threatening the se- 
curity of estates which the Proprietors would not willingly 
suffer to pass from their control. It became necessary to 
divide these among themselves, if they would retain them in 
any form. In 1697-8, petitions for warehouse lots were be- 
coming frequent and the slow-moving Proprietors would sell 
only in their own time and way. In that year they divided to 
each of themselves, a warehouse lot in Waybossett or in the 
town street. This was not by lottery, but they generally 
granted to each of their number the water lot opposite his 
homestead. These were of the width of forty feet, and little 
forethought or care was shown in leaving alleys between 
them for future access to the river. These narrow lanes are 
an inheritance from the old agricultural proprietors. For 
modern streets we are indebted to the new commercial free- 
men. The aggressions of this new class of townsmen did 
not ceasCj and in 1703-4, February 17th, the Proprietors car- 
ried this resolution in the town meeting. It was drawn up 
in this rasping and peremptory manner, by Thomas Olney, 
the town clerk. " Whereas several persons have exhibited 
bills desiring a grant to them of Warehouse lots it hath been 
considered that the land in this Town belongs to the Pur- 
chasers (as to what lies in common undivided), and that those 
persons who may legally vote in matters as to government 
may not have to doe to act & voate in the disposition of lands, 
as it may plainly appear by several passages in our Towne 
Records. Therefore if they are inclinable to propagate their 
desire (if they see cause), they may apply themselves to the 
Purchasers at their meeting." (The original record is in the 
handwriting of Thomas Olney.) The law which separated 
these two classes of voters marked also the social distinction 
which prevailed without complaint or cavil during the colo- 
nial time. 

In the eighteenth century, now begun, the old "tumults" 
and " heats" in the town meetings came to an end. The legal 
status of the proprietary corporation was now everywhere 



122 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

recognized. It had only to fear the depredations of secret 
plunderers, who, in the absence of a police, were not easily 
restrained.* So late as February, 17 15, the swine of the 
freeholders ran riot in the wood lands, which in their unen- 
closed condition seemed to invite attack.f 

The thatch beds of coarse reedy grass, growing about the 
cove and along the Wonasquatucket, were, from an early pe- 
riod, regarded as a valuable possession by the Proprietors, 
and by the town. Each party had beds exclusively its own, 
which it guarded with jealous care.ij: In July, 1685, there had 
been farther efforts by the town meeting to prevent cutting 
the grass by any but those who were authorized by the re- 
spective owners. As the town grew larger, and the modest 
dwellings of those days more numerous, the loss was sensibly 
felt by the treasuries of both town and proprietary. The fol- 
lowing vote (July 27, 1704), shows something of their mutual 
relations, at least as respected one not unimportant source of 
revenue. " Whereas, by several persons of this town there 
hath been this day, a bill exhibited to the purchasers, now 
met, that by them care might be taken for the orderly cutting 
of the thatch-grass on the thatch-beds which are within our 
township of Providence, so that each Purchaser & Proprietor 
in the commons belonging to & in said Township may have his 
proportion of the said thatch-grass according to his propor- 
tion of comon which he hath within said township, & not for 
those who have a smaller or lesser part or right in the comon 
to deprive these, of those just parts of the said thatch-grass 
who have a greater & more full right to ye said comons, but 
such purchaser or proprietor may have of the said thatch- 
grass proportionable according unto what his right of comon 
is ; therefore for the propagation thereof, the Purchasers now 
met doe order & appoint Mr. Joseph Williams, Major John 

*February 26, 1710-11. Swine were to be restrained from going on the 
commons without yoakes and rings. 

fMay 22, 17 10. " Ordered that no goates shall be left to goe at liberty 
on ye common, but shall be confined within their owners' land." (So also 
of horses.) The number of such "voates" proves that they were not 
enforced. 

IJuly 17, 1682, a fine of ten shillings was imposed upon every one who 
cut the thatch-beds without authority. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 23 

Dexter & Captain Thomas ffenner, to draw up in writing, 
some method & way how & in what order, the matter pre- 
mised may suitably be affected and to propose it to the pur- 
chasers at their meeting on Monday the 14th of August next. 
In order thereunto, it is hereby ordered that the Purchasers 
shall meet together on Monday the 14th day of August 
next."* On the same day order was taken for the building 
of a " bridge from the Town side of the salt water in Provi- 
dence Towne, adjoining against the west end of the lott 
where Daniell Abbott his dwelling house standeth, & so 
across the water unto the hill called Weybossett Hill." 
A committee was appointed to solicit contributions from the 
principal inhabitants. Like most attempts to raise money 
for public works by voluntary contribution, this one met with 
no success. The Proprietors offered neither lots nor timber, 
and the people waited patiently during several years to come. 
(The first bridge extended from the "Towne Streete," to the 
present opening of Weybosset Street, and the successive 
bridges have been shortened with the gradual filling up of 
the river.) 

The prosperity of the Proprietors was probably not much 
diminished by the depredations of swine and goats. But as 
time went on there were new and more serious causes of ap- 
prehension. During sixty years they had been occasional 
sellers of small parcels of swamp and meadow. They were 
now the chief holders of town lots, and many freemen who 
were not of their society were anxious to procure homesteads 
for themselves and for their friends. The town was enlarg- 
ing its borders. The hundred and one Proprietors had long 
ceased to be the majority of the town meeting, and the admo- 
nitions of Thomas Olney, that the freemen who were not of 
their number had no right to vote away the domain of the 
Proprietors, were failing of their effect. These were unwil- 
ling to provoke the resentment of the freemen, who had 
learned the power which the old institutions of the town gave 

*It is to be feared that the limited skill and eloquence of Major Dex- 
ter and Captain ffenner were unable to restrain the householders, whose 
humble dwellings were in need of new roofs, from helping themselves to 
this spontaneous product of the earth, wherever they might find it. 



124 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

them. The old law by which all deeds were invalid until 
they had been approved by the town meeting, was still in 
force. If the Proprietors were not as liberal in their gifts 
of lots as the popular majority desired, it was in the power 
of the town meeting to delay or prevent all their dividends 
and sales. This had been done in one instance where they 
had prevented a division during nearly two years, by refusing 
to record the deeds. The society was not desirous of any 
renewal of the strife. But such votes as the following were 
becoming rather too frequent : " On the Town's Quarter day, 
Thursday, January 27, 1703-4, Thomas Olney, Moderator 
A lot forty feet square was granted to William Edmunds to 
set a blacksmith shop on it, within the space of one year 
from this day, the which if he fails of so doing, then the said 
piece of land shall return again to the Towne." This lot lay 
between the lands of Joseph Whipple, half-way up what is 
now "Constitution Hill," and the "prison-house," at the head 
of it. On the same day a lot forty feet square was granted 
by the Town Meeting to William Smith for a weaver's shop. 
The conditions were the same, to build within a year, and to 
follow his trade. Such votes savoured too much of the com- 
munistic theories of modern days. This was a cheap and 
easy method of being charitable at the expense of other peo- 
ple, and the resort to it was becoming more frequent. The 
admonition of Thomas Olney produced no effect, and in a 
few years the danger became threatening. 

The Proprietors still clung tenaciously to their old agricul- 
tural pursuits and habits, and did not welcome the new age 
which was coming in. The wilderness beyond the " seven- 
mile line" was yielding to the axe and plough, and already 
afforded some little trade to the town street. It was now 
sought, not so much to prevent the sale of timber as to con- 
fine it as a monopoly to its chief owners.* As the Proprie- 

*February ye 6th, 1709-10. . " It is ordered that no strangers nor 
any other person who is not interested in ye Common of our Plantation, 
of his own right, shall cut down, carry away, or make improvement of, 
any cedar or pine timber, or any other sort of Timber in our Township, 
or its Comon, unless they have grant from ye body of ye purchasers & 
proprietors ; and if any shall presume to act contrary to this order, they 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 25 

tors neither built nor improved nor enclosed, most of their 
corporate property outside the "town streete" had grown 
up into woodland. They were the chief holders of timber 
lands of which they desired to make some advantage in the 
age of navigation which was before them. The freemen 
showed little inclination to aid the Proprietors in guarding 
their estate, and as the younger and more active citizens 
they had learned some political devices which would have 
done no discredit to a later day. Thus, the Proprietors ap- 
pointed a private meeting of their own, at an early hour in 
the morning, to make arrangements for acting in concert in 
the town meeting of that day. The younger men, it seems, 
were earlier risers than their elders, and thus thwarted their 
design. " At a Towne Meeting, June ye 6th, 1709. . 
The Meeting is adjourned to ye 9th instant in ye morning, 
before the Purchasers meeting begins."* 

While the Proprietors' estate lasted, the thatch-beds were 
a continual source of annoyance as well as profit, and the 
association endeavored to rid itself of them, as they had done 
with the farm lands beyond the seven-mile line. This is an 
extract from a resolution of July 27th, 1706 : " Ordered that 
every particular share of said thatch-bed shall be divided 
out to each person who are proprietors, according to their 
proportion, between this day and the first of May next ensu- 
ing, and each person to pay his share of money for the di- 
viding,] before he receiveth his (part }). This part of the 
thatch-beds — that beyond the cove — seems to have given 
no farther trouble. A single owner could watch his own por- 
tion far more effectively than a committee or the agents of 
the Proprietors could keep guard over the whole. 

But the old vexations remained. Few would trouble them- 
selves to make, still less to enforce, laws intended solely for 

shall be liable to be dealt withall in a due course of law by legal prose- 
cution. Neither shall any person who is interested in the commons of 
our towne, grant leave to any stranger or give to act with any ye timber on 
ye towne's Commons, as aforesaid unless it be with ye consent of ye body 
of ye said Purchasers & Proprietors." 

*Eight o'clock, A. M. was not an unusual hour for the town meeting. 

tThis payment was for surveyors and other expenses. They had 
nothing to pay for the land itself. 



126 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

the benefit of the Proprietors' estate. The ravages of swine 
(see for example January 27, 1712) upon the unenclosed com- 
mons were again before the town meeting. The Proprietors 
were now a hopeless minority. They were chiefly residents 
of the "compact part of the town," while the freemen, their 
old enemies, controlled the remainder. They could now expect 
little from the town meeting, and could only stand on the 
defensive and protect themselves. They hesitated long. 
Thomas Olney, the second of the name, had spent all his 
best years in the office of town clerk. He was the depositary 
of the town's traditions, and knew all its land titles and its 
local history. He was in all things a lover and a preserver 
of things gone by. He had lived through its controversies 
and its disasters, and had learned sufficient law to guard it 
against serious mistakes.* He remembered the time when 
his father, Thomas Olney, and his proprietary brethren had 
been the whole town meeting. His own life had been spent 
in the support of their interests while they were a declining 
minority in numbers, and now through his sagacious pur- 
chases he was probably the wealthiest among them. He 
could not endure any radical change in the Proprietors' rela- 
tions with their fellow-townsmen, although he knew that 
their political ascendency had hopelessly gone by. Such was 
his authority among them while he lived, that no separation 
could be accomplished. When he was laid to rest in the 
quiet of his "home lot," on the hill side, his surviving 
brethren yielded to a necessity which he could not or would 
not see. In 1718 (the precise date cannot now be ascertained), 
the Proprietors withdrew their affairs from the cognizance 
and control of the town meeting. The landed corporation 
now elected its own clerk and began its own series of records, 
by which they hoped to secure their property and perpetuate 
the memory of their acts.f In what form their withdrawal 
was signified we know not, for nothing respecting it appears 
upon the town book. After using the town's machinery 

*In his last will he mentions " my law book called Coke upon Little- 
ton," which had been a gift from William Harris. 

fThey probably believed that they could thus escape the effect of the 
town law which subjected all deeds to a vote of approval by the town 
meeting, before they could be entered upon the town records. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 27 

for their own interests, during nearly fourscore years, they 
parted with this curt and summary intimation that they 
needed it no longer. Thenceforth they set up for themselves, 
as a private land company. 

It may surprise one who remembers their incorporation 
under the act of 1682, that no doubt or question was sug- 
gested as to their legal right to do this. The imbecility of 
the Colonial Courts of Rhode Island was never more signally 
manifested. But no one knew law enough in those days to 
make any objections. The courts were merely popular assem- 
blages, with judges not better informed than their neighbors. 
The utmost which could now be feared was a hot dispute in 
the town meeting. The Proprietors knew well with whom 
they were dealing and no ill consequences followed.* 

Their position after the separation from the town meeting 
was better than ever before. The town had not hesitated 
when it served its purpose to use their land as a charitable 
fund. But they could not transfer the lot of one private 
owner to another, and these aggression and gifts by the town 
meeting, once frequent, now came to an end. As Judge Sta- 
ples has observed, the Proprietors never objected to the 
town's taking to itself a lot which was needed for public 
uses, whether permanent or transitory. Far on in the last 
century, the town had little corporate property of its own, 
excepting its bridges and wharf and a small school house — 
holding its public meetings at the chief inns. Its public 
functionaries, the town clerk, treasurer, &c., kept their offices 
and papers in their own houses, to the great detriment of 
the public archives. A temporary hospital was a sufficient 
provision for occasional visitations of yellow fever or small 
pox. The public demand for such sites was infrequent, and 
it was but a trifling burden on the liberality of the corpora- 
tion. It was a gain to the Proprietors if the town took one 
of their lots and improved it, and thus made their other 
estates more valuable. They made no objections or claims 
for compensation when lands were taken for roads ; for the 

*The Legislature would do nothing for Providence. The town was 
always unpopular, and its town meetings and its parties had little to hope 
for from the General Assembly. 



128 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

ferry at " Narrow passage," where is now " Red Bridge ;" for 
the " pest house," as they called it ; the schools, the jail house, 
the town wharf, the market place; the dock or "wharffe," 
whereon stands the old City Hall. (The prison lot, now the 
site of the police office, was given by the Proprietors of Prov- 
idence in 1753, — west of the Court House and adjoining the 
cove. The jail was erected by the colony on the west end of 
this lot and partly over the water. See " Staples's Annals," 
pp. 180, 201.) On the other hand, the Proprietors never built 
or enclosed, or incurred any expense whatsoever. The town 
meeting caused but little detriment to the Proprietors, for 
the old townsmen were to the last degree frugal in their tax- 
ation and expenditure. 

With this new organization, all continuous history of the 
Proprietors comes to a sudden close. Through whose fault 
or negligence I know not, their records have utterly perished, 
not a fragment surviving to the present day. They preserved 
many illustrations of Colonial usages and ways of life, which 
gained in interest for the antiquary, long after they ceased 
to be of value to the conveyancer. Nothing remains from 
which to prepare a narrative of the decay and extinction of 
the once powerful society. The records of its old adversary, 
the town meeting, preserve occasional reference to its acts. 
These, however, are not many. The Proprietors, as their 
strength decayed, carefully avoided conflict, still more, col- 
lision with the town, especially such as might provoke aggres- 
sion or illwill. They ordered their sales after their old ways 
and methods, living prudently upon a capital now augmenting 
in value, but of which one or two generations would see the 
end. (See " Staples's Annals," p. 36.) In 1718, another div- 
idend was made, after the old fashion. One hundred and one 
house lots upon the southerly and easterly sides of what is 
now called Weybosset Street, and on the west side of the 
"towne streete," extending northwardly beyond the site 
of the late " Canal Market," and on the south side of 
" Olney's Lane," were distributed, one to each Proprietor's 
share. All these lots seem to have been accounted as of 
equal value. The centre of the town was then at the north 
end, near the Town Mill and the bridge at Wapwaysett, now 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 29 

Randall Street. The land on the west side of the " towne 
streete," north of " Mile-end Cove," was platted and divided 
into "warehouse lots." In most cases, these were sold by 
the Proprietors to the owners of the houses opposite, on the 
east side of the street. Other lots were sold freely to such 
as desired them. Sometimes a dividend was made to each 
"purchase right," or share. The site of his lot was left to 
each Proprietor to choose for himself. As of old, it was then 
surveyed by the Proprietors' surveyor, allowed by the Propri- 
etors and recorded by the Proprietors' clerk. Many of those 
who bought from them, did not regard their records as a suffi- 
cient security, and caused their deeds to be again recorded 
in the books of the town clerk. Through sales and dividends, 
most of the lots upon the chief thoroughfares now passed 
into private ownership. But so late as June 6th, I757> it is 
mentioned, with apparent dissatisfaction, in the town records, 
that very much land in Providence Neck was still unenclosed 
and unsold. 

The association had now entered upon its best and most 
prosperous days. During the third decade of the last cen- 
tury, the nominal price of a lot in or near the towne street, 
was ;^30 or £'}^2 ; as large a nominal sum as Williams had 
received for the whole purchase, a century before. The com- 
mercial period of the town had begun. Houses of two stories 
in height were now everywhere superseding the humble 
dwellings of the primitive land owners, and Spanish sugars, 
wines and cloths from the West Indies and the Spanish main 
were offered in the shops of the town street. 

The Proprietors were still the chief land owners and their 
title deeds the most numerous. During the first half of the 
last century, a " Proprietor's share " seems to have been one 
of the most valuable inheritances in Providence, its capacity 
for yielding nourishment being far from exhausted. With 
the old generations old controversies had passed away. A 
new cause of irritation from without had united the Proprie- 
tors and the freeholders. The new freemen, beyond the 
"seven-mile line," — the successors of the "25 acre men" of 
former days, — kept alive their old griefs and avenged them 
upon the men of the town street — Proprietors and free- 



130 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

holders alike. The commercial interests of the town now 
formed a compact union to oppose the issue of illimitable 
reams of paper money, by which the country party sought to 
relieve its own improvidence and insolvency at the expense 
of the honor and credit of the colony. The real money — so 
much as there was of it — was in the "compact part of Prov- 
idence Town," and the country sought, with too much success, 
to thrust its own burdens upon its old enemies. 

During many years the never-failing topic of the thatch 
beds near the cove and the river valleys was the chief point 
of contact of the Proprietors with the town meeting. This 
coarse, reedy grass always yielded some revenue, and was of 
some interest to that economical assembly. Some of those 
thatch beds had been claimed by the town and had been 
yielded to it by the Proprietors, and so in other years, but 
when or how, cannot now be ascertained. During the last 
century their rental or income had a conspicuous place in the 
town's accounts. Thus : 30th of August, 1748. "It is voated 
& ordered that Richard Waterman, Town Clark, do let, & 
lease out the Town's lands, at the place called the Grate 
Point in Providence, to the highest bidder, for the space of 
seven years, & that he sign & execute a lease to such persons 
as he shall agree with, and that he sign such lease on behalf 
of the Town." Last Tuesday of August, 1769: "The thatch 
at the Great Point & high bank, sold to James Angell for 
twenty four shillings lawful money." 1767, 6th of July: "The 
thatch belonging to the Town, sold this day in open Town 
Meeting to Knight Dexter for £6s, old tenor." 

There are not many now remaining among us who remem- 
ber the old " Grate Poynt." It was a long and not unpic- 
turesque " cape," as the boys called it who flocked thither, 
fresh from their geographies, for their daily swim after 
school hours. The "cape" projected into the cove in a 
southerly direction, and was still overgrown with the ancient 
thatch grass. The water was clear and pure, and afforded to 
a long succession of school boys our first lessons in aquatic 
exercises. The "cape" disappeared when so large a portion 
of the cove was filled up for the building of the Worcester 
Railroad, 1843-44. 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. I3I 

The thatch beds had their historical associations. They 
were the last remnant of the reserve for which Williams 
fought so stout a battle. With the separation of the proprie- 
torship from the town meeting came the end of the "reser- 
vation" which he had fondly hoped would be a refuge for 
persons "distressed for conscience." We have seen that 
though the early Proprietors assented to a reservation for 
the use of the townsmen, they would never consent to its 
appropriation to any particular class, and never gave to Wil- 
liams or Clarke authority to make such an offer in England. 
(See Town Meeting Records, Vol. IX., p. 278.) It appeared 
by the Proprietors' Records, that in 1658 a tract of land con- 
taining a thousand acres or more "was stated perpetually to 
be & lie in common," embracing a large part of what is now 
North Providence and terminating with the hill north of the 
cove and Great Point. This order was lost or it miscarried 
because of the Indian War. The Proprietors' meeting on 
the 2d day of December, 1685: "In view of the necessity of 
some lands perpetually to be & lie in common, near unto our 
Town, for the use and benefit of the inhabitants, enacted & 
ordered, that all the tract mentioned afore, which was then 
in common, should forever remain & be in common, & that 
all parts of said tract which were then taken up by any per- 
son which should at any time be laid down to common, should 
continually so remain;" which order was declared "irrever- 
sible without the full & unanimous consent of the whole 
number of the Purchasers."* It appeared by the Proprietors' 
records that, notwithstanding this order, at a Proprietors' 
meeting, 13th March, 1724, a committee was appointed by the 
Proprietors to divide the said stated common among the Pro- 
prietors themselves. This committee wasted no time, and on 
the 15th of June, reported a division and a plat. This plat was 
accepted, allowed and confirmed by a clear vote and lots 
drawn for the different shares. Upon the examination of this 
plat there appeared to have been left a small piece of land 
(the southern and eastern extremities of Great Point) un- 
divided, of which the town kept possession as part of the 

*This was a very common formula in those days and not very much 
regarded. 



132 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

common stated in 1658, until the year 1747, leasing it and 
receiving the rents, issues and profits. On the i8th of May, 
1747, a vote was passed by the Proprietors for the sale of 
this land, and a committee was appointed who sold it to Noah 
Whipple for ^57, old tenor. It appears (Town Records Vol. 
IX., p. 279) that at the next term of the Inferior Court of 
Common Pleas for the County of Providence, an action of 
trespass and ejectment was brought by Noah Whipple 
against John Whipple, then in possession as lessee of the 
town, by lease dated 29th of January, 1 740-1. There was a 
verdict for the defendant on a plea of possession. The plain- 
tiff did not enter or prosecute any appeal. From that time 
until 1 82 1 it appears from the votes of the town and from 
the conveyances of adjoining lands, that the town are the 
owners of a piece of land situate at that place. This is a 
specimen of the confusion which existed in divers places as 
to the town's and the Proprietors' property. It was due to 
the ignorance of both bench and bar in those days. When 
any such matter came to a practical issue, the Proprietors 
generally had the worst of it. The exact quantity of the 
above tract the town's committee in 1823 could not ascer- 
tain. But it appears that the town had a right to about five 
acres. The heirs of Nathaniel Smith of Providence were in 
possession of part of the said five acres, being about one and 
three-quarters, and the heirs of John Brown claim two acres. 
Said Smith and Brown and their grantees had been in pos- 
session of the said lands for a long time previous. The value 
of the land is not sufficient to warrant a suit for its recovery 
by law. (From a report of a committee appointed by the 
town meeting, August, 1823 — Vol. IX., Town Meeting Rec- 
ords, pp. 279-80 — to examine the title to the thatch beds 
belonging to the town.) The late Judge Staples was one of 
that committee. He was the Proprietors' clerk and fur- 
nished the extract, one of the very few which remain, from 
their book of records. One and one-quarter acres were all 
that was left undisputed. Thus ended a far-sighted project 
for the public good, which Williams had conceived with per- 
haps not well-considered benevolence, and which the first 
generation of Proprietors had left as their chief contribution 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 33 

to the charities of the town. Whatever hopes there may have 
been of parks or pleasure grounds, or gifts to public utility, 
have long since faded away. (See Town Records, Vol. IX., 
p. 265 ; see Book of Plats, Weybosset Street to the water.) 

The third generation of Proprietors divided all into small 
allotments for themselves. They were suffered to do as they 
pleased, with but little dissent, as the wealthy landholders of 
those days generally were. They probably wondered at the 
enmity which they sometimes excited. 

This is the last dividend of which any record remains. The 
courts of that day knew nothing of trusts or of the manner 
of enforcing their execution. Through their ignorance this 
poor remnant was all which remained of the liberal reserva- 
tion by the first Proprietors for the beneiit of the town which 
they had planted. 

Their history has few more recorded incidents. Other inter- 
ests had surperseded theirs in the regard of a new generation. 
From 1730 to 1760 their sales were frequent and profitable. 
A "Proprietors' share" was still one of the best inheritances 
in the Plantations. Descendants of Browns, Arnolds, Olneys, 
Angells and Watermans, found, year by year, new reasons 
for blessing the memory of their exiled ancestors, and were 
consoled for their fathers' sufferings by substantial dividends 
from their estates. The seven-years' war (1756-1763), like 
most others, created an artificial prosperity. It crowded the 
wharves of Providence with prizes taken by privateers, and 
the temporary excitement caused some demand for house 
lots in a day in which nothing was known of bonds or shares. 
This was followed by the usual torpor and stagnation. The 
Revolution paralyzed commerce. According to the late Mr, 
Rowland, not a single house was built here during seven 
years. As the years went on, the lessening number of their 
deeds, and the more obscure character of the property con- 
veyed, indicated that their capital was wasting away. Their 
conveyances, which filled so large a space in the earlier vol- 
umes of the town records, now become comparatively few, 
and at the end of the century almost disappeared. After the 
revival of the commerce of the town, with the wars of the 
French Republic and Empire, an occasional deed may be 



134 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

found on record, but the corporation of Proprietors was the 
great landholder no longer. Young men of a new genera- 
tion — the last which had any participation in their affairs — 
were now coming into public life. One of these was the late 
Governor Philip Allen. He represented a Proprietors' share, 
which had long been held by his family. He was fond of 
local history and carefully preserved its details. He attended 
the meetings of the Proprietors until the last. The business 
of the society steadily decreased, and they made up for its 
comparative unimportance by the time which they occupied 
in doing it. There came to their assemblies men whose births 
had been registered in the early decades of the last century. 
These brought their recollections of old events, customs and 
traditions, and who gave their youthful memories of ancient 
men who in their own early days had seen Williams, Harris, 
and the patriarchs of the town. The old corporation had as 
much the appearance of an antiquarian or historical society as 
of an assembly for business. When the colonial generation 
had passed away, the periodical meetings had little value or 
interest for the younger members, who had active employ- 
ment of their own. They were still held, but the life of the 
society was ended. There was still some remnant of its old 
prestige. So late as 1 815 it had still sufficient vitality to main- 
tain its right against the town in its share of the ancient 
thatch beds. (Town Meeting Records, Vol. VHL, p. 348.) 
Monday, July 24th, 1815, a committee was appointed to fix 
the bounds of the thatch beds above Weybosset bridge with 
those of the Proprietors. 

There were possibilities of dormant or contingent rights, 
which the corporation might assert against the town or 
against private citizens. Nearly seventy years ago some at- 
tempts of this kind were made, chiefly under the direction of 
Mr. Philip Crapo, then a well-known practitioner at the bar. 
His claim was, that the town had taken Dorrance Street, or a 
part of it (formerly called Muddy dock), without compensa- 
tion to the Proprietors. Other dormant claims to lands which 
had been appropriated by the town, would have been revived, 
if this had been successful. But all such hopes proved delu- 
sive. Those who remember the late Mr. Crapo, his grotesque 



PROVIDENCE PROPRIETORS AND FREEHOLDERS. 1 35 

appearance and his peculiar style of oratory, will appreciate 
the fact that he met with little success in awakening public 
sympathy for a cause in itself sufficiently unpopular. Courts 
were not more favorable to it than the public from which the 
jurors were to be drawn. Soon after the failure of these at- 
tempts, the Proprietors' meetings altogether ceased. The 
last, of which there was any record, was in 1832, and then 
this ancient chronicle of grievances and hates was finally and 
forever closed. 

The freeholders were now the owners of every valuable 
acre and waterfall. Little remained which was of sufficient 
value to justify the expense of litigation. During the earlier 
years of this century, the Proprietors' plats were in frequent 
requisition in the law suits about boundaries with their mon- 
uments of black-oak trees and heaps of stones of which the 
rural landholders were so fond. The bounds of the Proprie- 
tors' surveyors had lacked every requisite of permanence, 
while estates had descended from father to son, durmg sev- 
eral generations. When the original monuments had decayed, 
the landholders could set their stone walls as they pleased, 
without consulting the Proprietors, who had no funds to ex- 
pend upon lawsuits. If any swamp, then regarded as useless, 
or rocky upland not worth cultivation yet remained unsold, 
the statute of possession has long ago confirmed the adverse 
title of its occupants, and the society and its claims are at 
rest together. It might be difficult to determine when it be- 
came extinct. The late Judge Staples was the last holder of 
the once dignified and influential office of Proprietors' clerk. 
In his time it had sadly shrunken and shrivelled from its 
ancient importance. He was little more than a guardian of 
its records;and a preserver of its traditions. During his long 
professional life he carefully protected its remains. In his 
" Annals " he made no mention of its faults, and passed over 
without reference what he could not defend or eulogize. He 
left no successor. No antiquarian has sought to preserve the 
memory of the " Proprietors" since he, their last mourner, 
was borne to the grave. 



136 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

This is a summary, I hope not an unfair or partial one, 
of the progress and end of the old " Society of the Proprie- 
tors of Providence," its earliest corporation once powerful, 
but now almost unknown. What good it may have done, I 
have endeavored to mention in its time and place. The work 
was not burdensome, for their deeds of benevolence were few 
and far between. Their public services did not justify their 
original possession of the entire freehold of the town or their 
subsequent incorporation by the State (1682). They never 
rose to the perception that even liberal gifts of their unsold 
acres to purposes of public utility would have hastened the 
growth of the "Plantations," and thus have been more prof-, 
itable than a dividend among themselves. All that they, 
accomplished had been better done by the town itself. Some 
long-enduring estates grew up to the comfort of private fam- 
ilies, but little was done to promote the education or well-being 
of a community which had begun with no other capital. The 
one hundred and one had successfully grasped nearly the whole 
of the original purchase, by which Williams had hoped to 
supply the want of private wealth. They built no monument, 
to themselves. Whoever passes through our streets to-day,' 
and asks for the memorials of the planters of the town, will 
find no park or school or structure, or public work, or gift 
to charity or learning, for which their successors owe any 
gratitude to them. In the days of their prosperity they for- 
got to do any thing for the town which they had planted, and 
it in like manner has forgotten them. 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Abbott, 72 

Daniel, 112, 123 
Absolute Swamp, 68 
Acquetneck, i, 3 
Allen. Philip, 134 
Angell, 105, 133 

James, 130 

Thomas, 49 
Apaum, 6 
Aquidneck, 30 
Arnold, 105, 133 

Benedict, 6, 8, 11, 23, So 

William, 23, 80 
Assotemewit, 6 
Athens, 37 

Atherton Company, 83 
Baptists, 38 
Bay people, 39, 40 
Belleau, 56 
Bernon, Gabriel, 114 

Bill of, 115 
Bewitt, Hugh, 22, 68 
Bewitt's Brow, 68 
Blackstone River, 64, 85 
Boston, 20, 33, 42 
Brown, 105, 133 

Chad, 19, 23, 39, 65, 68, 72, 79 

Henry, 49, 96 

John, 90, 132 
Burnyeat, 99 
Burrillville, 87 
Burrough, William, 49 
Canada, 120 
Canonchet, 104 
Canonicus, i, 5, 6, 8, 13, 79, 80 
Carpenter, 105 

Ephraim, 105 



Charles I, 47, 52 
Charles II, 76, 106, 107 
Charter, Earl of Warwick, 32, 34 
Church, 10, n 

Clarke, John, 56, 63, 76, 95. 131 
Clawson, John, 46, 47, 78 
Clemence, Thomas, 50, 100 
Clement, Thomas, 49 
Coddington, 58, 71, 77, 80, 98 
Colonial Assembly, 88 
Commissioners, general court of, 73 
Common, 78 
"lands," 24, 26, 43, 91 
"lots," 47, 50 
" Confirmation," 8 

deeds, 80 
Connecticut Colony, 9, 29, 57, 58, 

81,88 
Constitution Hill, 81, 124 
Cotton, John, 55 
Court of Trials, 77, 97 
Coweset, 104 
Cranston, 55, 87 
Crapo, Philip, 134 
Cromwell, Oliver, 52, 58, 62, 73, 75 
Dean, 73 
Deeds, 47, 52, 79, 80, 89, 90, 94, 124, 

133' 135; see Initial Deed. 
Democracie, 37, 40 
Dexter, Gregory, 22, 28, 39, 45, 53, 

58, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 78, 8i, 

90, 94, 96, 99, 100 
John, 123 
Dexter Asylum, 17 
Dexter's Lane, 116, 119 
Disposers, 21 
Dorchester, Mass., 46, 81 

(137) 



138 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Dyer, 58 

Edmunds, William, 124 
Ellis, James, 15 

England, i, 2, 7, 22, 26, 31, 32, 
38, 39. 56, 5S, 62, 66, 69, 72, 
"5> 131 
Europe, 62 

" Family of Love," 62 
" Fellowship of vote," 14, 88, 93, 
Fenner, Arthur, 49, 83, 90, 94, 
96, 99, loi, 102, 104, 117, 118 

John, 48 

Thomas, 123 
Field, 59 

John, 23, 59, 72, 113 

William, 48 
Field's Point, 17 
Fifth Monarchy men, 62, 63 
Fifty-acre division, 93 
First Memorandum, 14 
Foote, 60 

Joshua, 105 
Foster, 87 

Four-mile line, 93, 103 
Fowler, Henry, 60 
Fox, 99, 115 

George, 98, 99 
Fox's Hill, 3, 48 
France, i, 120 

Freeholders, i, 19, 53,59, 65, 67, 
7i.9i>93. 94, 96,98,99) 100, 
112, 115, 120, 122, 129, 135 
Freemen, 36, 113 
General Assembly, order of, 95 
Glocester, 87 
Goatom, 50 

Goldsmith, Joseph, 118 
Gorton, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 96 

Samuel, 27, 30 
Grate Poynt, 130 
Hale, Sir Matthew, 52 
Harris, Thomas, 49, 118 
senior, 88, 104 

William, i, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 
19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35 
45, 46, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 



69, 



Harris, William, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 
77, 82, 83, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 
100, 105, 106, 107 
"booke" 74, 75, 76, 77 

Harrison, 62 

Hawkins, William, 92 

Hipsie's Rock, 68 

Holland, i 

Holmes, Obadiah, 31 

Home lot, 50, 51 

Hopkins, Thomas, Sr., 96 

Howland, 133 

Hudson, William, 105 

Initial Deed, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 
53, 54, 66, 67, 79, 88, 89 

Inman, Edward, 48 

Jenckes, Daniel, 105 
Joseph, 105 

Johnston. 87 

Kingsmen, 75, 76, 77 

Land records, 47, 52 

Leare, Jane, 48 

Lime rocks, 93 

Line, see Four and Seven. 

London, 2, 28, 73 

Manton, Shadrack, 96 

Mashapog, 8 

Massachusetts, i, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 
12, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 
33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 4°, 43, 47, 53, 
55, 57, 58, 75, 80, 82, 83, 85, 105 

Mathewson, Daniel, no 

Matteson, James, 49 

Maushapauge, town of, 5 

Mead, Samuel, 116 

Meeting-house, 11 

Memorandum, first, 5 
second, 6 

Miantonomi, 5, 6, 8, 13, 31, 80 

Moosh River, 13 

Mooshassuc, 3,4,5, 9, n, 12, 17, 19, 
21, 22, 27, 28, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 
55, 59, 61, 69, 74, 82, 83, 85, 91, 
104, 105, 107, 112, 120 
Colony, 2 

Musuassacutt Country, 83 



GENERAL INDEX. 



39 



Nanhegansett Sachems, 83 
Nanhegansick, 5 
Narragansett, 2, 7, 104 
sachems, 82 
wigwams, 9 
Narragansetts, i, 10, 11, 22, 65, 104, 

107 
Narrow passage, 128 
Neuticonkanet, 5, 8, 49 
Neuticonkonitt Hill, 86 
New England, 43, 56, 61, 115 
New Jersey, 56 
New London, 114 
New York, 37, 61 
Newburyport, 114 
Newport, 3, 12, 29, 34, 35, 58, 80, 82, 
94, 107, 108 
Assembly, 96, 97, 98, 99 
act of, 107 
Nipmucks, 82 
Niswoshakit, 82 
North Burying Ground, 120 
North Providence, 64, 131 
Notakunhanet, 8, 49, 86 
Notquonchanet Hill, 5 
Observation Rock, 68 
Olney, 105, 133 
Epenetus, 45, 104 
John, 119 

Thomas, senior, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 
3^, 39. 45. 46, 48, S3. 57. 59. 60, 
60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 78, 80, 82, 83, 
84, 86, 88, 93, 107 
junior, 90, 99, 104, 105, 116, 
u8, 121, 123, 124, 126 
Pachasit River, 49 
Pautuckut, 5, 6, 65 
Pawtucket, 8, 68, 115 

River, 86 
Pawtuxet, 6, 16, 19, 28, 29, 31, 33, 
34. 6s, 105 
''purchase," 19, 20, 71 
River, 6, 13, 80 
Philip's War, 114 
" Plaister, Sovereign," 66, 67, 69 
Plantations, i, 2, 3, 5, 117, 133, 136 



Plymouth, i, 6, 7, 30, 34, 40, 98 

Pomham, 80 

Portsmouth, 107, io8 

Pray, Richard, 48, 49 

Proprietors, i, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 
36, 38, 39. 40, 4', 42, 43. 44, 45. 
49.50. 51.53. 56,57. 61,63,64, 
65, 66, 69, 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 
83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 

93. 94, 95. 96. 97. 99. 1°°. 102, 
103, 105, io6, 108, 109, no, III, 
112, 113, 114, 115, n6, 117, 118, 
119, 120, 121, 123, 124, I2S, 126, 
128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134 

Proprietors' " association," 21 

" claim," 9, i6, 67 

meetings, end of, 135 

"rights," 23, 32 

records, 131 

"share," 129, 133, 134 

surveyors, 49 

vote of, 132 

Providence, 3, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21, 28, 

30, 33. 34. 38, 44. 49. 58, 59, 67, 

77, 79, 82, 83, 84, 89, 93, 94, 96, 

97, 98, 104, 106, 107, 108, 113, 

115, 122, 129 

Neck, no, 129 
Plantations, 34, 107 
Towne, 20, 23, 32, 87, 130 
Purchasers, is, 22, 23, 87, 91, 92, 93, 

94, 109, 1 16, 122, I2S, 131 
Quakers, 76, 82, 97, 100, 107, 112 
Quarter Court, 33 

order of, 27, 42 
Quarter Day, 92, 113, 116, 117, 124 

meetings, 44, 52, 58 
Quarter-rights men, 33, 35, 36, 38, 

84, 91 
Quinnichicutt, 6 
Quorum, 2$ 
Ralph, Samuel, 117 
Records of lands, 47, 52, 100, loi, 
104 

proprietors, 126, 128, 134, 135 



[40 



GENERAL INDEX. 



Reddock, 94 
Revolution, 133 

Rhode Island, 4, 23, 38, 40, 47, 57, 
58,63,74,75,76,80,81,98, 107 

Colonial Courts of, 127 
Rhodes, 105 

Sachems' "memorandum," 5, 12,65 
Salem, 42, 45, 113 
Sayles, John, 90 
School-house, 116 
Scott, Richard, 60 
Secession, 33, 35 
" Second comers," 22, 23, 32, 33 

Agreement of, 22, 23 
Second " memorandum," 6, 65 
Seekonk, 2, 91 

River, 9 
Seven-Years' War, 133 
Seven-mile line, 68, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 

94, 103, 112, 119, 125, 129 
Slavery, 38 
Smith, Edward, loi, 102, 103 

resolution of, loi, 102 

Fenner, 105 

John, 48 

Nathaniel, 132 

William, 124 
Smithfield, 82, 85, 87 
Soconoco, 80 
Soldash 6 
Solvency, 23 
South Carolina, 38 
" Sovereign Plaister," 66, 69, 70, 72, 

78, 88, 94, 96, 99, 100 
Squatter Sovereignty, 4 
Stampers Hill, 116 
Staples, W. R., 5, 64, 127, 132, 135 
Staves, 42 
Steere, John, 92 
Stone, Dr., 104 
Suffrage, 10 
Sugar-loaf Hill, 68 
Surveyors, 50, 51, 100, 109 
Tabor, John, 117 
Tar, 109 
Thatch-beds, no, 125, 131, 134 



Throckmorton, John, 7 
Timber, 42, 85, 124 
Town "booke," 24, 81 

Deputy, 49, 78, 79 

"Fellowship," 10, 20, 21, 26, 29, 

33.35 
Meeting, 11, 21, 50, 56, 59, 61, 65, 
72, 78, 80, 83, 86, 107, 113, 124, 

125 
Order of, 83, 88, 92, 104, 114, 

ii7> 123 
Courts, 52 
Town Mill, 52, 56, 78, 107, 116 
" Stocks," 17, 44, 53, 54 
Street, no 
Training-ground, 120 
Twenty-mile boundary, 89 
Twenty-five acre men, 46, 69, 71, 

80, 92, 93, 94, loi, 129 
Tyburn, 73 
Utah, 3, 62 
Vane, Sir Henry, 56, 57, 58, 62, 69, 

73.96 
Verin, Joshua, 44, 45, 47, 52, 72, 

104, I 06 
"Village Hampdens," 87 
Wapuaysett, 128 
Warehouse "lotts," 118, 120, 129 
Warwick, 31, 74, 89, 107, 108 
Waterman, 133 

Richard, 49, 130 
Wayunkeke, 80, 81, 85 
West Indies, 129 
Westerly, 107, 108 
Weybossett Hill, 123 

meadows of, 113 
Whipple, John, 15, 32, 45, 46, 65, 66, 
70, 98, 104, 112, 132 
senior, 50, 81 
Joseph, 124 
Noah, 132 
Samuel, 118 
Whitman, Valentine, 90 
Wickenden, William, 23, 48, 68, 72, 

90 
Wickes, Francis, 48 



GENERAL INDEX. 



14] 



Williams, Joseph, 122 
Robert, 59 
Roger, 1-22, 24-28, 30-33, 35, 36, 

38,39. 43, 46, 50,5'. 53-66, es- 
se, SS, S9, 90, 92-96, 98, 99, 104- 
107, 114, 115, u6, 129, 131, 132, 
134, 136 
his first deed, see Initial 
Deed. 



Williams, Roger, his second deed, 
89, 90 
Roger, 2d, io6 
Winslow, Gov., 7 
Winthrop, John, 3, 4, lo, 29, 30, 54, 

81 
Wonas River, 13 
Wonasquatucket, 64, 83, 122 
River, 5, 44, 48, 50 



:., 1906 



